• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

1 in 4 rule

tschwa2

tschwa2

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
16,018
Reaction score
4,680
Points
748
Location
Maryland
Resorts Owned
A few in S and VA, a single resort in NC, MD, PA, and UT, plus Jamaica and the Bahamas
I had heard that the Barrier Island Station resorts were changing management. I noticed last night that Kitty Hawk and Ocean Pines have now imposed a 1 in 4 rule per RCI "stictly enforced." Developers do this to promote sales by telling people that if you like it here and want to return you will have to buy because you won't be able to trade in more than once in every 4 years. What do you think of the 1 in 4 rule?
 
Bill4728

Bill4728

Moderator
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
605
Points
899
Location
Lake Tapps, WA
I think a 1 in 4 rule is reasonable but I do not like the 1 in 4 rules that are applied to a TS system. In Socal, the Grand Pacific (GP) group has a 1 in 4 rule, if you stay at any of their ~5 SoCal resorts you can not visit any other GP resort again for 4 years.

That doesn't seem right to me.
 
L

Lee B

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
698
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
San Jose CA
If the resort has very attractive features and is in selling mode, this might get some exchangers to consider buying there. Most TUGgers, OTOH, know better than to buy from a developer and also use alternate exchange companies to get back in.
 
J

John Cummings

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,020
Reaction score
80
Points
433
Location
Murrieta, California
I do not like the 1 in 4 rule or any other restrictions that limit where I can exchange into. I have used SFX exclusively for the last 12 years which doesn't have any restrictions. I have exchanged 5 times into the Grand Mayans in the past 5 years, 2 weeks on each exchange with SFX. I could not have done that with RCI which has a 1 in 5 rule for the Grand Mayan/Mayan Palace resorts. I have also exchanged 4 times in one year into the HGVC/Flamingo in Las Vegas which has the RCI 1 in 4 rule.
 
exyeh

exyeh

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
24
Points
378
Location
plano, TX
I just notice this 1 in 4 rule in RCI. Does Interval has the same rule, too? Thanks for answering in advance.
 
S

Sandy

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,339
Reaction score
27
Points
408
Location
Charlotte, NC (really Fort Mill, SC)
Seems like it is RCI, not developers

If a developer has this interest in promoting sales, then why is only RCI an accomplice? And why is the rule in place at those resorts that have long ago finished their major sales push?

For example, if a resort trades through several companies (II and SFX for example), why do only those trades through RCI have a 1 in 4 rule? Isn't it the same developer promoting sales at the same resort?

Since it is only RCI with this rule/limitation, there must be some type of corporate stranglehold RCI is willing to impose on its traders, for the benefit of the developers, that the other companies are not willing to do.

Just my thoughts, what do others think?

sandy
 
M

melschey

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
Points
377
exyeh said:
I just notice this 1 in 4 rule in RCI. Does Interval has the same rule, too? Thanks for answering in advance.
Click to expand...

No RCI is the only exchange company with this rule.
 
J

JMAESD84

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
609
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
New Hampshire
Sandy said:
If a developer has this interest in promoting sales, then why is only RCI an accomplice? And why is the rule in place at those resorts that have long ago finished their major sales push?

For example, if a resort trades through several companies (II and SFX for example), why do only those trades through RCI have a 1 in 4 rule? Isn't it the same developer promoting sales at the same resort?

Since it is only RCI with this rule/limitation, there must be some type of corporate stranglehold RCI is willing to impose on its traders, for the benefit of the developers, that the other companies are not willing to do.

Just my thoughts, what do others think?

sandy
Click to expand...

This is a business agreement between the resort and RCI, who apparently have a significant enough common interest that RCI is willing to limit the exchange benefits of it's members. RCI is an accomplice in this arrangement.

The resorts have no control over independent exchange companies like SFX, DAE, Redweek, etc.
 
S

Sandy

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,339
Reaction score
27
Points
408
Location
Charlotte, NC (really Fort Mill, SC)
JMAESD84 said:
This is a business agreement between the resort and RCI, who apparently have a significant enough common interest that RCI is willing to limit the exchange benefits of it's members. RCI is an accomplice in this arrangement.

The resorts have no control over independent exchange companies like SFX, DAE, Redweek, etc.
Click to expand...

Just as I thought!
 
B

bnoble

TUG Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
11,695
Reaction score
5,428
Points
798
Location
The People's Republic of Ann Arbor
II has similar policies with their regional blocks (which RCI has likewise adopted).

It is worth remembering that the "major" exchange companies' real customers are resort developers, not timeshare owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top