• 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!

RCI Weeks to offer value transparency

Status
Not open for further replies.

AFARR

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
340
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Allentown Area, PA
A consensus?

If RCI valued weeks based on:

#1. Demand (and supply) in the area.
#2. Size of Units.
#3. Rating of Resort (from users/comments and resort location/amenities).
#4. Demand Week (High, Red, White Blue) for the area.

With a fairly objective criteria...would that make for a fair valuation?


And, as a final note....I have to wonder if this might be driven not so much by the Class Action suit (since it appears to be a simple slap on the wrist...if not a "high five" for RCI)...but by the people who are still upset about it and are pushing the State's Atty General(s) to look into it.

AFARR
 

T_R_Oglodyte

TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
16,116
Reaction score
8,064
Points
1,048
Location
Belly-View, WA
If RCI valued weeks based on:

#1. Demand (and supply) in the area.
#2. Size of Units.
#3. Rating of Resort (from users/comments and resort location/amenities).
#4. Demand Week (High, Red, White Blue) for the area.

With a fairly objective criteria...would that make for a fair valuation?

Ostensibly, right now RCI values weeks almost entirely based on supply and demand, with the added imposition of a filter that prevents someone from being offered a week at a resort that is deemed too much of a downgrade in quality.

This has led to the recognition among the savvy that the worst possible situation is to own a low demand week at a nice resort in an overbuilt area. Conversely, the best week to own is a peak demand week in a good (but not great) resort in a popular area with a limited number of timeshares.

Rating of the resort generally enters the picture only in terms of the filter I mentioned above; it effectively blocks the owner at a resort with high ratings from ever being offered a week at a lower rated resort even though the trade power might match.

*******

Color of the week is almost meaningless. There are many areas where, as a sop to developers, the resort is deemed "red" almost the entire year. But since RCI bases demand in the weeks system on demand, many owners of "red" weeks have found that their "red" weeks aren't even pink.

******

IMHO - the only thing that should matter is supply and demand. The problem right now is that someone depositing gets no information on what the true value is for their week, nor do they get good information on what are realistic trades given the value of the week they have deposited.
 

MuranoJo

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
4,946
Reaction score
186
Points
448
Location
Idaho
If RCI valued weeks based on:

#1. Demand (and supply) in the area.
#2. Size of Units.
#3. Rating of Resort (from users/comments and resort location/amenities).
#4. Demand Week (High, Red, White Blue) for the area.

With a fairly objective criteria...would that make for a fair valuation?


And, as a final note....I have to wonder if this might be driven not so much by the Class Action suit (since it appears to be a simple slap on the wrist...if not a "high five" for RCI)...but by the people who are still upset about it and are pushing the State's Atty General(s) to look into it.

AFARR
I would make #4 a #2 in your list. People look for the area, then they look for available timeframes...after that, they get picky about size of unit, resort rating, etc.

This is a generalization--some people limit their searches to the resort and will go to demand weeks from there.
 

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
935
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
#1 Demand needs to be resort specific, not just for the area. Same with supply.
#2 May already be part of demand factor, but worth adding as a seperate factor.
#3 Already part of demand factor, as it is one of the drivers of demand. However it is a lesser driver than location (also already factored in to demand). None of the drivers of demand should be double counted by being used as a seperate factor for trade value, as that would be highly unfair to resorts that excelled in another of the drivers of demand.
#4 Color codes are virtually meaningless. Many were established many years ago and not changed even though exchange dynamics changed greatly in the resort area in subsequent years. There is also the problem of the phony ''red all year'' overbuilt areas like the Canary Islands and Orlando. Demand should be week to week based on historic data for each week at each resort.


If RCI valued weeks based on:

#1. Demand (and supply) in the area.
#2. Size of Units.
#3. Rating of Resort (from users/comments and resort location/amenities).
#4. Demand Week (High, Red, White Blue) for the area.

With a fairly objective criteria...would that make for a fair valuation?


And, as a final note....I have to wonder if this might be driven not so much by the Class Action suit (since it appears to be a simple slap on the wrist...if not a "high five" for RCI)...but by the people who are still upset about it and are pushing the State's Atty General(s) to look into it.

AFARR
 

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
935
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
RCI is properly more like a stock exchange than a store. A store is selling its own goods, not a quasi-fiduciary which helps facilitiate trades among members for a fee.

*****

This combining value of blue weeks argument is a total dud. Having to combine m/f's makes this absolutely a non-starter. This will lead to those blue week owners who own to trade, and have not already done so, dumping their blue weeks. The fire sale of short shelf life inventory used to be the prop for the value of blue weeks, but RCI has fraudulently diverted this to Points.

I would also use the term ''low demand weeks'' rather than blue weeks, since there are some off season ''red'' weeks in places like the Canary Islands and Orlando which in an honest system would be blue. Similarly there are resorts like two I own at in Europe where any week including blue or white weeks almost never appears in RCI availibility. These weeks are high demand even if they are blue.


Why is transparency needed?

When people go to a store they don't demand transparency as to how the store sets prices. All a consumer needs to know is how much money they have in their wallet (i.e., how much their week is worth) and how much the goods in the store will cost (i.e., the price needed to get the weeks that are inventory.

From that information you can make the decision as to whether or not you want to shop at that store, or take your business somewhere else. If a store persists in overpricing inventory, the stuff sits on the shelf until it loses value.

********

You've long advocated the value of using independent exchange companies because they offer better value. I would think you would be thrilled to see RCI do this, because the better value offered by independents will be totally evident. And if RCI does goose trade power to inflate the value of certain weeks and undervalue other desirable weeks, the discrepancies will be even more apparent.

I would think that independent companies would be glad to see this happen.

****

This also seems to me to add value to blue weeks. Because if the system allows week values to be combined, blue weeks will still have all of the trade value they currently have, but they will have the added value of being used to upgrade the value of another week.
 

stevedmatt

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
701
Reaction score
1
Points
228
Location
NJ
I don't think that's a correct perspective at all. A week is like money in your wallet. There are a number of merchants who will take that week from you and give you something back. You spend your money with whatever merchant gives you the most value for your week.

I fail to see any significant difference between that and, for example, deciding whether I should buy my paint at a big retailer like Home Depot or an independent paint store. You just go with whomever provides the best value.

+++++++

I also have no idea what this "equals" concept is that you are talking about. When did RCI become a co-op?

RCI is properly more like a stock exchange than a store. A store is selling its own goods, not a quasi-fiduciary which helps facilitiate trades among members for a fee.

I mean equals in the sense that we are all members who have paid the same fee to get in. As Carolinian states, they are an exchange company, offering members a means to exchange their weeks for a fee. They have certainly become a store, but I actually feel the initial concept was that of a co-op.

I don't know of a store where I have to pay $89 a year to shop there. Then I essentially have to give them $300-900 (value of my week) to step in the door to see what's inside. Then, if I find something I like, they charge me a mandatory $179 fee to carry it to my car. I really fail to see how you see them as a store. This definitely isn't the way shopping at Home Depot goes.

The need for transparency is the need to see what is available before giving them my week. It is also the need to see how they determined the value of my week, and the week I am trading for. As stated before, what is to stop them from taking payoffs to raise the value of a certain resorts weeks?

Also, are they still going to be able to put junk weeks into their inventory and rent out the prime weeks? This is a rhetorical question. Since the possibility exists for 2-1 trades when you deposit a prime week, shouldn't RCI need to insert 2 junk weeks into their inventory when the remove a Prime week to rent out?
 

bnoble

TUG Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
11,630
Reaction score
5,366
Points
798
Location
The People's Republic of Ann Arbor
I have a blue week that I used to get an off-season Orlando week (used to have two blue weeks but gave away one of them), and I can rent an identical week directly from RCI much cheaper than my MF ($480) + exchange fee. I am anxious to be done with that week, I can tell you that.
Maybe the problem is that your week is essentially worthless---it costs more to maintain it than anyone would pay to stay there. I'm not sure why it is RCI's responsibility to give that week value.

For those concerned about RCI setting values, and want some outside objective evaluation: it exists. It's called "renting on the open market."
 

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
935
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
Giving them the benefit of the doubt

Lets say that RCI really wants to get this right and has no hidden agenda. How would they set it up to be fair, honest, and objective?

1) dynamic values Set the value of your deposit at the time of deposit. That is sensible and fair and is what they do now. For exchanges, adjust constantly based on changing supply and demand. Value each week at each resort based on a fair mix of historic supply and demand and current supply and demand. Use no extraneous factors like double counting award status, something that is already inherently factored into demand. For a set of numbers to be dynamic, they would have to be published only electronically, not with paper and ink. RCI might actually be thinking in that direction given the way they have already shrunk the resort directory to save trees (and money) and suggested that members use the online directory instead.

2) transparency of value setting Publish the formula for setting values and link to the underlying data that justifies it, or alternatively have a third party accounting firm audit it and certify that it complies with the published formula.

3) continue reductions for short shelf life inventory Continue some arrangement to substantially discount late inventory. If Points people are going to have access to Weeks last minute inventory, it would only be fair to give Weeks members access to last minute Points inventory for similar reducitons in value. Another option would be to give Weeks members first crack at last minute Weeks inventory before anyone else had a shot at it.

4) treat size of units differently Hopefully the data would allow simply seperating the supply and demand data for different size units at the same resort. If not this would have to be done arbitrarily but fairly.

5) Don't give in to developer pressure Don't even take a call from a developer wanting a special arrangement on assigning value. Use supply and demand and let the chips fall where they may.

6) transparency for weeks removed for rentals or added Fully disclose what weeks have been removed for rentals and what weeks added into the system by RCI. Also disclose weeks transfered between Points and Weeks.

7) timing Do not reduce the window in which to make exchanges. Do disclose the added trade power for early deposits as that will help encourage early deposits.

8) eliminate downward quality filter This has always been a very annoying feature at RCI, essentially substituting the opinion of some RCI bureaucrat of what resorts I would like for my own judgment. They need to keep their opinions to themselves not inflict them on me.
 
Last edited:

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
935
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
Maybe the problem is that your week is essentially worthless---it costs more to maintain it than anyone would pay to stay there. I'm not sure why it is RCI's responsibility to give that week value.

For those concerned about RCI setting values, and want some outside objective evaluation: it exists. It's called "renting on the open market."

. . . and since it has the same supply / demand characteristics as that off season Orlando week, then the off season Orlando week must also be essentially worthless.

The problem with using rental values as a mark of the value of timeshares is that RCI has artificially depressed the rental market by flooding the market with exchange deposits they are renting out.
 

sandkastle4966

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
764
Reaction score
79
Points
388
Location
NoVa
I don't like to prospect of 'combining' weeks at all. I don't think that 2 or 3 dogs equals a tiger !
 

AFARR

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
340
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Allentown Area, PA
Lets say that RCI really wants to get this right and has no hidden agenda. How would they set it up to be fair, honest, and objective?

1) dynamic values Set the value of your deposit at the time of deposit. That is sensible and fair and is what they do now. For exchanges, adjust constantly based on changing supply and demand. Value each week at each resort based on a fair mix of historic supply and demand and current supply and demand. Use no extraneous factors like double counting award status, something that is already inherently factored into demand. For a set of numbers to be dynamic, they would have to be published only electronically, not with paper and ink. RCI might actually be thinking in that direction given the way they have already shrunk the resort directory to save trees (and money) and suggested that members use the online directory instead.

2) transparency of value setting Publish the formula for setting values and link to the underlying data that justifies it, or alternatively have a third party accounting firm audit it and certify that it complies with the published formula.

3) continue reductions for short shelf life inventory Continue some arrangement to substantially discount late inventory. If Points people are going to have access to Weeks last minute inventory, it would only be fair to give Weeks members access to last minute Points inventory for similar reducitons in value. Another option would be to give Weeks members first crack at last minute Weeks inventory before anyone else had a shot at it.

4) treat size of units differently Hopefully the data would allow simply seperating the supply and demand data for different size units at the same resort. If not this would have to be done arbitrarily but fairly.

5) Don't give in to developer pressure Don't even take a call from a developer wanting a special arrangement on assigning value. Use supply and demand and let the chips fall where they may.

6) transparency for weeks removed for rentals or added Fully disclose what weeks have been removed for rentals and what weeks added into the system by RCI. Also disclose weeks transfered between Points and Weeks.

7) timing Do not reduce the window in which to make exchanges. Do disclose the added trade power for early deposits as that will help encourage early deposits.

Carolinian....

Doesn't look like we're too far apart. #1 and #7 in yours are almost the same...the value is set when the deposit is made....so if there's no OBX weeks available and you deposit your week, you are kicking into the low supply & presumably high demand end...getting more value. That increases your trade value. Turn in your Orlando week when there's 47,263 available in that same time period..the reverse is true.

I do want to see some weighting for the size of the unit....a 3Br should trade better than a 1 Br or Studio in the same area (I'm looking at Lock-Offs as possible future purchases...and if I get one, it could then be considered trade-able based on 1Br + 2 BR, or 3Br..depending on the best value.

#5 I heartily agree with...that allows the Developer to overprice their weeks to the suckers prospective purchasers, and gets people even more disgusted with the TS purchase process.


I think they could come up with a VALID formula for demand (rather than Red/White/Blue)...based on demand (or filled units) for that area AND resort...hell, my wife joined a Gym recently...and she got a spreadsheet showing the average number of people using the Gym for each hour it was open...as part of the RCI affiliation, maybe each resort should document Owners staying, Exchangers staying, Rental Staying and Open units for each week.

Then they come up with a 'base value' in trade credits on the resort and 'added value' credits....the base comes from Supply (units in the resort, units in the area) /Demand (how full the resort is, how many requests to get there each year), Size of Unit, and some kind of rating on the resort (comments, access to amenities or attractions, etc....not necessarily the Gold/Silver, etc.). Probably weighted to Supply/Demand, then Size, then Rating.

Then they do the 'added value' credit...deposit more than a year early, you get extra credits...deposit less than 6 months out..no credit. Deposit when there are few other similar units in inventory...additional credits.

So....a 3 Br Lockoff on the Beach at OBX on July 4th week...would be worth 50 credits. Deposit it 1 year out, 5 extra credits. No other units in inventory...5 more credits for the scarcity at the time of deposit. So you get a base of 50 credits, + the 10 added value credits. The same unit off the beach (BIS Kitty Hawk) would be 47 credits under the same conditions..

A 2Br away from the beach, end of September week would be 30 credits...they can still get the early deposit credit and probably not the full scarcity at time of deposit credit (since there's likely to be at least a few of them).

A 1 Br away from the beach in February would be 15 credits...so they need to get the maximum from their added value credits...

A 2 BR Orlando end of Sept. week would be 25 credits (yeah, Orlando's popular, but overbuilt), assuming you have to drive a bit to get to the major attractions....get a place where you trip over Mickey or Goofy when you walk out the door in the AM...then it's 30 credits...


I do like the idea of some (even if it's slight) weighting towards the amenities and reviews at the resort....it encourages the resort to keep the place up to get their higher ratings (and the HOA will not let it fall off if their members lose trade and resale value).

AFARR
 

timeos2

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
11,183
Reaction score
5
Points
36
Location
Rochester, NY
It is value at one area but not another? I don't think so

I would also use the term ''low demand weeks'' rather than blue weeks, since there are some off season ''red'' weeks in places like the Canary Islands and Orlando which in an honest system would be blue. Similarly there are resorts like two I own at in Europe where any week including blue or white weeks almost never appears in RCI availibility. These weeks are high demand even if they are blue.

. . . and since it has the same supply / demand characteristics as that off season Orlando week, then the off season Orlando week must also be essentially worthless.

Interesting and all in the same thread.

I would argue that in the case of the Orlando week, just as stated for the "blue" week, since the time in fact gets claimed (demand) 99% of the time it too has high demand even if they are red (pink) thus far from "essentially worthless". Sorry but you can't have it both ways!

And I do agree it should all be by RESORT, not overall area, as that changes the demand significantly. Demand for the far too many units at Orange Lake or Wastegate kills value while smaller resorts, say DVC or others, may be 110% filled at the same time. To say they "essentially worthless" just because there are 100 Wastegate weeks waiting to be taken is ridiculous.
 

JMAESD84

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
609
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
New Hampshire
Sounds like Redweek!

What is being described here is exactly what Redweek does today. Absent the formula for setting exchange values on deposits, which probably won't be provided by any of the exchange companies.

Redweek also charges a few more points to obtain an exchange than the number given to the depositer. This is to help cover the burn rate (loss of inventory never exchanged). Last minute inventory is offered for a points discount and also put up for rent. This recognizes the lower value of the short shelf life inventory and helps manage the burn rate.

Valuations are given before deposit and adjusted for demand. You may disagree with the valuation offer, but the choice to deposit is always yours. They have a much lower membership fee and exchange fee. They also give 3 years to use your points.

RCI's weeks exchange system should simply transition to the one that Redweek has modeled or alternatively.....

Everyone using RCI weeks should simply switch to Redweek.
 

Mel

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,882
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Connecticut
The only way that could be a fair system is if 1) the method of setting values is fully transparent to prevent the developer politicking of RCI for values not justified by the market, and 2) the values remain dynamic rather than rigged and frozen like RCI Points. If the numbers are published but the method of setting them is hidden, then it will be open season for developers getting RCI to cook the books. Deal appropriately with those two issues, and I would not have that much problem with it. Of course, I will still probably use DAE and SFX instead.

There would be both positive and negative aspects to a dynamic system, though that is what I would think would work best. Convert what exists now, just show us the numbers as well. When we make our trade we see if it is a trade up or down.

But I see some real negatives to a transparent dynamic system. Inexperienced exchangers will look once and see the value of their week when they decide to deposit, while more experienced exchangers will still be able to play the system by watching the daily value of their potential deposit and only depositing at its peak. Woe betide the owner who pays his maintenace fee early in order to deposit, only to find the resort bulk-banks a bunch of weeks between the time he makes his decision and the time he is able to make the actual deposit.

Again for the inexeperienced exchanger, the "value" of his deposit at the time of deposit only exists during that "snapshot" of the system. He checks online to see what he can exchange for, given his week's value, and decides to deposit, only to find that 4 days later, when his resort has confirmed his deposit, the cost of what he wants has gone up. It's still available, but he can't get it.

Unless there is TOTAL TRANSPARENCY of the mechanism of setting values, the system is far, far worse than what exists now.

We know how easy it is to trade into the overbuilt areas now, due to the vast oversupply there. If these values inflate their trading power, then it will be revealed as a total fraud by RCI. Points has done that and I suspect given who is so happy about this one, this new system will also overvalue the overbuilt areas.

In a dynamic system, I don't see that really being an issue. If the values of those weeks are too high, nobody will exchange into them until the cost falls as the use date nears. Owners at other area resorts should be more concerned with the value of their week compared to the system as a whole - they are not going to be trying to exchange into the resorts you consider overvalued, so it doesn't really impact them. RCI has a certain amount of supply, and if they end up giving out more "credits" to those owners than they eventually take in because they end up discounting those weeks, they will eventually give those weeks a more permanent discount.

While I agree with rickandcindy, that this could have the potential to be terrible for weeks owner, but it also has the potential to be something very good. Over time it should provide some balance - If I trade down a bit one year with my week, I have some points left over to trade up a bit the next time. It does mean those who are always trading up will have to adjust, because they won't always be trading up. For the blue week owners, if they maintain a 45-day window, where the cost to trade into anything is equal to the cost of the "lowest" week in the system, they can maintain some value. For the low-demand owner who also owns a higher-demand week, they could be combined for two weeks in a resort with an average demand.

What should be interesting is how such a new system drives demand in some areas. In Orlando, will be see demand among the various resorts balance out, with the nicer resorts having a slightly higher value, or will people be willing to pay a true premium to stay at the better resorts? Will there be a change in the pattern of who stays at which resorts? Will we finally see a change in behavior regarding those who book the 2BR they don't really need, just because it's available? Under the current system, if a 2BR (or even 3BR) is available for the same "cost" as a 1BR, many people book the larger unit, leaving only smaller units available for those who look later. If the larger unit cost more, perhaps more people will book the smaller units, and we will in effect see more availability in the larger units.
 

logan115

TUG Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Wheeling, IL
Shouldn't the current RCI points value for a given week be a good proxy for what to expect in the new valuation ? Can't see RCi being able to defend it being worth XX points, but on the weeks side having a lower value.

Chris
 

bluehende

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,507
Reaction score
3,967
Points
598
That question was raised in John's companion thread at ts4ms.


So if what John is saying is correct, you will be able to keep your week in your wallet while you browse around. And perhaps even be able to see what would be required to make certain exchanges should a week of that type become available.


I will speak for myself...not John or RCI.

You need to change 1 word ..... will to should. Kind of changes the meaning. In this instance it is exactly what I do when I enter a retail store.
 

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
935
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
Interesting and all in the same thread.

I would argue that in the case of the Orlando week, just as stated for the "blue" week, since the time in fact gets claimed (demand) 99% of the time it too has high demand even if they are red (pink) thus far from "essentially worthless". Sorry but you can't have it both ways!

And I do agree it should all be by RESORT, not overall area, as that changes the demand significantly. Demand for the far too many units at Orange Lake or Wastegate kills value while smaller resorts, say DVC or others, may be 110% filled at the same time. To say they "essentially worthless" just because there are 100 Wastegate weeks waiting to be taken is ridiculous.

Actually, I remember Bootleg revealing that the resort with the biggest oversupply of weeks in the entire RCI system was Vacation Villas at Parkway, an Orlando resort. Apparently it even outdoes Wastegate in that regard.

You get a lot of your Orlando occupancy via exchanges from off season weeks elsewhere. If RCI changes the math on that where they can no longer make those trades, Orlando is going to have a lot more units going empty. The same is true in the Canary Islands and some other overbuilt places.
 

krj9999

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
1,090
Reaction score
172
Points
423
Location
Maryland
I'm still unclear how far they will take this concept. For example, will people that can't see Disney units now be able to do so in the future, even if it takes 2 or 3 weeks to obtain a trade?

Also, it would seem that if a fixed value is set for each unit, that they would really need to set a +/- from this fixed value on what you could trade with. For example, if the week you want requires 45 credits and your deposit is only 40 credits, that this would be sufficiently close to obtain the trade without having to commit another week. But a deposit worth only 30 credits would be too far away to obtain. I guess it also partly depends on how many point levels they come up with. If it is anything like RCI points is currently, it will really be a pain to deal with.

And how will they address existing deposits? How will these transition to the credit system?
 

rickandcindy23

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
31,894
Reaction score
8,998
Points
1,049
Location
The Centennial State
Resorts Owned
Wyndham Founder; Disney OKW & SSR; Marriott's Willow Ridge,Shadow Ridge,Grand Chateau;Val Chatelle; Hono Koa OF (3); SBR(LOTS), SDO a few; Grand Palms; WKORV-OF (2),Westin Desert Willow.
Maybe the problem is that your week is essentially worthless---it costs more to maintain it than anyone would pay to stay there. I'm not sure why it is RCI's responsibility to give that week value.

For those concerned about RCI setting values, and want some outside objective evaluation: it exists. It's called "renting on the open market."

That's true, and so is a SUPPOSED RED Orlando week essentially worthless. Can you imagine owning a week in Orlando, paying $800 in fees, and that same week rents for $249 through RCI? So I guess I got an equal exchange, but I could have rented it cheaper from their rental inventory. The new exchange fees are outrageous, and I won't be paying those anymore, unless it's Last Call in Points.

I could probably get $480 out of my blue week, should I choose to rent it. I may do that this year.

And by the way, RCI was different for many years. And we should know, because we have owned and mostly traded that week for the past 27 years. We were able to get Point at Poipu for June with our blue week, as well as some great trades to Orlando, Southern California, and the Washington coast in prime summer.

RCI has changed, and the more people that are aware of the changes, the better. HOA boards need to let owners know how RCI treats exchangers, along with a list of alternatives. All resorts should be dual-affiliated with II as well. It's the only RIGHT thing to do.
 
Last edited:

rickandcindy23

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
31,894
Reaction score
8,998
Points
1,049
Location
The Centennial State
Resorts Owned
Wyndham Founder; Disney OKW & SSR; Marriott's Willow Ridge,Shadow Ridge,Grand Chateau;Val Chatelle; Hono Koa OF (3); SBR(LOTS), SDO a few; Grand Palms; WKORV-OF (2),Westin Desert Willow.
While I agree with rickandcindy, that this could have the potential to be What should be interesting is how such a new system drives demand in some areas. In Orlando, will be see demand among the various resorts balance out, with the nicer resorts having a slightly higher value, or will people be willing to pay a true premium to stay at the better resorts? Will there be a change in the pattern of who stays at which resorts? Will we finally see a change in behavior regarding those who book the 2BR they don't really need, just because it's available? Under the current system, if a 2BR (or even 3BR) is available for the same "cost" as a 1BR, many people book the larger unit, leaving only smaller units available for those who look later. If the larger unit cost more, perhaps more people will book the smaller units, and we will in effect see more availability in the larger units.

This will be interesting to see. If I can get a 2 bedroom, I do it, but if I did stay in RCI weeks (no way am I staying in that system), I would take a 1 bedroom and save some of my "points" for something else.

Will RCI get rid of the 1-in-4 rules? Those rules actually devalue resorts like Orange Lake and Hilton, because the lowliest of the low weeks, even my blue week, can sometimes get 2 and 3 bedroom units.
 
Last edited:

timeos2

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Lifetime Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
11,183
Reaction score
5
Points
36
Location
Rochester, NY
Close isn't good enough

I'm still unclear how far they will take this concept. For example, will people that can't see Disney units now be able to do so in the future, even if it takes 2 or 3 weeks to obtain a trade?

Also, it would seem that if a fixed value is set for each unit, that they would really need to set a +/- from this fixed value on what you could trade with. For example, if the week you want requires 45 credits and your deposit is only 40 credits, that this would be sufficiently close to obtain the trade without having to commit another week. But a deposit worth only 30 credits would be too far away to obtain. I guess it also partly depends on how many point levels they come up with. If it is anything like RCI points is currently, it will really be a pain to deal with.

And how will they address existing deposits? How will these transition to the credit system?

Yes, they should see the DVC units and have the change to cobble together the value needed. A big improvement and one that lets owners make the choices.

Just speculating on this one but I'd imagine that existing deposits will simply be assigned a number - one that would have been assigned if the system was in place when it was deposited.

As for "close enough" I don't think it would work that way. Since you get change back you would need to use the extra 5 credits from some source - even if it was a 50 value week - then you'd have 45 credits left for the next trade rather than 50. Unlike the current system you don't just lose that excess value. They wouldn't just "forgive" the extra required credits is my best guess.

And kudos to the post that noted this type of system can (hopefully will) lead to exchangers being more careful with reservations and thus conserving credits. So if you really only need a 1 bedroom (or a two) you don't waste extra credits to take a 2 (or 3) just because it's there. That is one of the big pluses to points - it makes the members far more careful to maximize value thus leaving more available for others who also (hopefully) shop carefully with their value. Big win for everybody on that one.
 

Carolinian

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
935
Points
598
Location
eastern Europe
My guess is that they will bring in a process to buy a few extra credits for that. As much as RCI is into rentals these days, that will make exchanges sometimes even a partial rental. They may look at this whole thing as a cash cow.



I'm still unclear how far they will take this concept. For example, will people that can't see Disney units now be able to do so in the future, even if it takes 2 or 3 weeks to obtain a trade?

Also, it would seem that if a fixed value is set for each unit, that they would really need to set a +/- from this fixed value on what you could trade with. For example, if the week you want requires 45 credits and your deposit is only 40 credits, that this would be sufficiently close to obtain the trade without having to commit another week. But a deposit worth only 30 credits would be too far away to obtain. I guess it also partly depends on how many point levels they come up with. If it is anything like RCI points is currently, it will really be a pain to deal with.

And how will they address existing deposits? How will these transition to the credit system?
 

krj9999

TUG Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
1,090
Reaction score
172
Points
423
Location
Maryland
I guess it depends on how many levels of credits there are, and how far apart they are. Are the jumps between levels 1 credit or 5 credits. And if a 2BR Disney is 60 credits, is a winter east coast beach week 10 credits or 25 credits. As others have said, demand vs. supply needs to be the overriding factor. Which it is not currently in looking at the RCI points grid for exchanging into weeks resorts.

Transparency is one thing. Whether the new system will be fair remains to be seen.

Yes, they should see the DVC units and have the change to cobble together the value needed. A big improvement and one that lets owners make the choices.

Just speculating on this one but I'd imagine that existing deposits will simply be assigned a number - one that would have been assigned if the system was in place when it was deposited.

As for "close enough" I don't think it would work that way. Since you get change back you would need to use the extra 5 credits from some source - even if it was a 50 value week - then you'd have 45 credits left for the next trade rather than 50. Unlike the current system you don't just lose that excess value. They wouldn't just "forgive" the extra required credits is my best guess.

And kudos to the post that noted this type of system can (hopefully will) lead to exchangers being more careful with reservations and thus conserving credits. So if you really only need a 1 bedroom (or a two) you don't waste extra credits to take a 2 (or 3) just because it's there. That is one of the big pluses to points - it makes the members far more careful to maximize value thus leaving more available for others who also (hopefully) shop carefully with their value. Big win for everybody on that one.
 

rickandcindy23

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
31,894
Reaction score
8,998
Points
1,049
Location
The Centennial State
Resorts Owned
Wyndham Founder; Disney OKW & SSR; Marriott's Willow Ridge,Shadow Ridge,Grand Chateau;Val Chatelle; Hono Koa OF (3); SBR(LOTS), SDO a few; Grand Palms; WKORV-OF (2),Westin Desert Willow.
They already value resorts in the points system. I think the values will be very similar. For example, you can get a 1 bedroom at Hilton Grand Vacations Club on I Drive for about 32K points in early December or most of January. My red weeks I use for PFD are valued at 45,500 pts, so I get to keep some of my points toward another exchange. But if I want a week in a 2 bed at Orange Lake's River Island for the same time of year, low season, I have to pay 52,500 points. High season is generally 30% higher for the same thing.

I guess it depends on how many levels of credits there are, and how far apart they are. Are the jumps between levels 1 credit or 5 credits. And if a 2BR Disney is 60 credits, is a winter east coast beach week 10 credits or 25 credits. As others have said, demand vs. supply needs to be the overriding factor. Which it is not currently in looking at the RCI points grid for exchanging into weeks resorts.

Transparency is one thing. Whether the new system will be fair remains to be seen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top