Lets look at an actual exchange weeks vs points

[Carolinian]

I traded into an RCI Points resort through DAE, and looked at the numbers for that.

The 2BR week I traded into at Sunny Coast Resort Club carried a total of 57,000 points. I did a straight weeks one for one trade using an OBX 1BR red week. In RCI Points, that red week would have a PFD value of 25,500 at the time. I would have had to use two of those weeks and then some to get the same trade with RCI Points. With DAE's weeks system, it was a clean even trade. Thank you, DAE!

Was it a trade up? Probably not. Given the supply on Malta, the resorts there are probably overpointed. But what is very certain is that the unfair generic points grids substantially undervalued prime Weeks inventory, such as the week I gave for the trade.

DAE gave me a fair trade that would not have been possible, using the same week in RCI Points.

 

[JeffV]

I double my bet.

Thanks JeffV for the best laugh I've had this year.

John your study is very useful so is the one done by JLB. We need more of these case studies. That way we can put some meat on the points vs weeks skeleton.

The difficulty is the space/time continuum.

 

[BocaBum99]

I traded into an RCI Points resort through DAE, and looked at the numbers for that.

The 2BR week I traded into at Sunny Coast Resort Club carried a total of 57,000 points. I did a straight weeks one for one trade using an OBX 1BR red week. In RCI Points, that red week would have a PFD value of 25,500 at the time. I would have had to use two of those weeks and then some to get the same trade with RCI Points. With DAE's weeks system, it was a clean even trade. Thank you, DAE!

Was it a trade up? Probably not. Given the supply on Malta, the resorts there are probably overpointed. But what is very certain is that the unfair generic points grids substantially undervalued prime Weeks inventory, such as the week I gave for the trade.

DAE gave me a fair trade that would not have been possible, using the same week in RCI Points.

Heads I win, tails you lose. That's the game I played when I was a kid to ensure that I always won a coin toss. This post reminded me of that.

 

[Carolinian]

The simple fact is that the generic girds undervalue prime Weeks inventory.
That means Points resort to Weeks through a crossover trade is a trade up if you are trading for prime inventory. but if you go the other way and use that grid to assign point values through PFD, you are losing value. Those two results are quite consistent and result from going through the grid from opposite directions. That's hardly ''heads I win, tails you lose''!

 

[Dani]

The simple fact is that the generic girds undervalue prime Weeks inventory.
That means Points resort to Weeks through a crossover trade is a trade up if you are trading for prime inventory. but if you go the other way and use that grid to assign point values through PFD, you are losing value. Those two results are quite consistent and result from going through the grid from opposite directions. That's hardly ''heads I win, tails you lose''!

It most certainly does not necessarily mean that. With respect to cross-over trades, if you are one of those individuals that has given up a prime week into Points, that would not be the case. Also, whether or not you have traded up or not is dependent upon the week that is exchanged into. Like people in Weeks, people in Points trade down.

With respect to PFD deposits, many weak trading deposits are trading waaaaay up. Far further up than they ever could in Weeks absent a "glitch." To use your terminoligy, there is a raiding of the Points system going on and this raiding is IMHO far more pervasive on the Points side than on the Weeks side.

If you have ever conducted searches within Weeks through Points, you would see that there is very little availability of prime weeks through this method. I have no idea why this is except that RCI has assigned a mid-range VEP to these exchanges through Points which prevents the exchange into some of the more prime resorts. This is not to say that good exchanges cannot be had, but frankly, it's a little shocking to see just how little you can get in Weeks through your Points account.

Sorry, but this idea that Points owners are raiding Weeks inventory is greatly exaggerated. If anything, smart Weeks owners are doing quite a number on Points inventory.

 

[Carolinian]

The problem with the crossover grids is overaveraging, a problem that also exists WITHIN points. When you lump two many dissimilar weeks together, as happens in Points resorts tables and even more so in the crossover grids, it gives the better weeks within those groups a value that is much too low. It also overvalues the lesser weeks within those groups.

Within Points, a good example is giving a mid-August week 33 on the OBX the same point total as a late October week 43. That's just nutty!

For the grids, all locations within broad areas are averaged together, and all red weeks of the same region of same size and award status are averaged together. That means that the lesser weeks within these overbroad groupings are going to be way overvalued and the prime weeks are going to be way undervalued. It is among the prime weeks that Weeks members are being ripped off by the crossover system. Considering award status in breaking down the girds is of little value, since location plays a much bigger role in value. They would do better to break down the regions into smaller areas, like they do for Europe on the grids.

As to people claiming that actual searchs show that there is less there that what the crossover grids say you can exchange for, I take this with a grain of salt. I know someone who used the crossover grids to get into Vienna, Austria, certainly a very prime location, during the Christmas market season for less than 10,000 points and he was also offered Allen House in London for a point total that was ridiculously low (unfortunarely for him at a time he couldn't go). These are very prime crossover trades.

Points members should be required to play with their own marbles and not be able to snatch them out of the Weeks game.

 

[Dani]

The problem with the crossover grids is overaveraging, a problem that also exists WITHIN points. When you lump two many dissimilar weeks together, as happens in Points resorts tables and even more so in the crossover grids, it gives the better weeks within those groups a value that is much too low. It also overvalues the lesser weeks within those groups.

Within Points, a good example is giving a mid-August week 33 on the OBX the same point total as a late October week 43. That's just nutty!

For the grids, all locations within broad areas are averaged together, and all red weeks of the same region of same size and award status are averaged together. That means that the lesser weeks within these overbroad groupings are going to be way overvalued and the prime weeks are going to be way undervalued. It is among the prime weeks that Weeks members are being ripped off by the crossover system. Considering award status in breaking down the girds is of little value, since location plays a much bigger role in value. They would do better to break down the regions into smaller areas, like they do for Europe on the grids.

As to people claiming that actual searchs show that there is less there that what the crossover grids say you can exchange for, I take this with a grain of salt. I know someone who used the crossover grids to get into Vienna, Austria, certainly a very prime location, during the Christmas market season for less than 10,000 points and he was also offered Allen House in London for a point total that was ridiculously low (unfortunarely for him at a time he couldn't go). These are very prime crossover trades.

Points members should be required to play with their own marbles and not be able to snatch them out of the Weeks game.

So basically, you have not conducted any of these searches yourself, have no first-hand knowledge of how these searches work, but insist on drawing inferfences nevertheless? That's fine, at least we know from what point of reference you are working from. If you ever decide to actually conduct searches in Points, I would be very interested to know your thoughts at that point.

As for your friend whom was able to obtain a Christmas week in Vienna, what you have left out of your statement is that necessarily, this had to be an exchange within the 45-day time frame. That means that your friend may have obtained that week 45 days out or 1 week out. That makes a big difference. Besides, I will be the first to say that there are some great weeks to be obtained through Points in Weeks within the 45-day time-frame.

As for your statement that:

"Points members should be required to play with their own marbles and not be able to snatch them out of the Weeks game"

I hope that you are prepared to say the same thing for People in Weeks. As I stated above, Weeks people are snatching weeks and units all day long from the Points system. I suspect that many people are not quite willing to let go of their ability to do so.

 

[timeos2]

The grids are averaged on purpose

Within Points, a good example is giving a mid-August week 33 on the OBX the same point total as a late October week 43. That's just nutty!

Actually because of the start of school in many areas there is a big drop off in value starting with week 33 and running through the high fall period. That coincides with the period you are highlighting. The same drop occurs all along the east coast and even in the less seasonal areas such as Orlando. When the kids can't go that has a real effect on many families ability to travel. For the coastal areas it also happens to fall in prime hurricane season which would also tend to lower value in that general.

The way points works does involve averaging values rather than strict week X worth Y valuation. That is not a bad thing until you focus in on one specific use week and say it's out of line. Viewed as the overall use period of weeks 33 to 43 the value is correct. Same with the weeks 26-32 being much higher value as they are the true prime use weeks for the east coast. Averaging values gives points users a better chance at all use times rather than focusing in on a valuable week or two and shutting all others out. It doesn't give the big bonus to the few limited buyers of those specific weeks but spreads the wealth over all buyers that have enough points to reserve in those prime periods.

As long as people buy in knowing what the values are - and in points they do - the field is level. The existing weeks owners that are used to the bonus value of a week 26 won't see it in points - but they also don't have to join if they wish to keep their fixed week and trade it in one of the weeks systems. If they do join points they will get the maximum value for that time but it may not be as high as the standalone week had by itself. Again if they don't like what they would get then they don't have to join the points party. No one is forcing them to. If there are no deposits from those resorts then no matter which side you reserve from - weeks or points - there isn't any inventory to claim. The owners, not RCI, still hold the ultimate control of depositing or not. The question is once you do deposit how do you have the best chance of getting fair value back out. In some cases it may be through weeks but I've found the majority of the time I do better with points. Everyone needs to be informed on both and use the right tool and hopefully hiding between the overblown rhetoric there are enough facts for readers to gain some insight on what will work for them. Focusing on one geographical area or one perception of the process doesn't really offer much insight. I like to see the experiences from many owners and different approaches used so we can all learn.

 

[JLB]

Indeed. I said a few months back before I even had a Points account that perhaps those who owned within both systems were among the most savvy of owners. As the days pass, I am more and more convinced of it.

Then one could endlessly debated with themselves, without involving others!

The more the debate goes on the more obvious the outcome~~~some trades are best for some people in Points and some trades are best for some people in Weeks.

Neither appears to be best all the time.

 

[AwayWeGo]

The Best Of Both Worlds -- Or More.

The more the debate goes on the more obvious the outcome~~~some trades are best for some people in Points and some trades are best for some people in Weeks.

Neither appears to be best all the time.

That sounds like a good reason to belong to both kinds of timeshare exchange systems -- weeks & points -- rather than just 1.

Then for maximum flexibility, how about belonging to points and weeks and owing a fixed or floating week at a resort you love to go to year after year without ever depositing it for exchange?

The best of 3 worlds, eh?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.

 

[JLB]

One world's hard enough to manage. I can't imagine 3.

 

[BocaBum99]

The more the debate goes on the more obvious the outcome~~~some trades are best for some people in Points and some trades are best for some people in Weeks.

Neither appears to be best all the time.

I totally agree with you on this point. It's too bad that some people only choose one system to the exclusion of the other. All they are doing is leaving good exchanges for others to reap.

 

[JLB]

Or, as the schizophrenic said, "I agree, and so do I."

 

[Carolinian]

No, I would never pay to join the wacky Points system just to do searchs, but another friend who bailed out of RCI Points gave me his RCI Points directory, so I do have access to all of the numbers. Over the time I have had that book I have posted quite a few inane number combinations, and not only for crossover trades.

One can get the numbers out of the book just as easy as off of the computer.
And with the frozen calcified numbers of points assigned (except the crossover grids), a new book is usually not even necessary!

Your assumption about the Vienna week is wrong! He obtained that quite a few months in advance, and it was during the Christmas market season, not Christmas week. It was actually early December. It was not a crossover into the Weeks 45-day window. I just pulled down the Points directory to look up the exact number of points it cost, and it was 8,500, and THAT is indeed raiding the Weeks system big time! The Allen House week he was offered was sometime in the late winter or early spring, and he told me that the points he would have had to give were the same as published in the grid for southern England. Apparently the ''from'' indicator in the Points directory was not being applied. I'm not sure of the week, and to the best of my recollection he said it was a 1BR. That would be either 15,000 points through week 9 or 31,000 after that until week 19. Either of those, again is raiding Weeks BIG TIME. This was again, a months in advance situation.

Of course, on the other hand, my friend who bailed out of Points kept getting the run around from RCI Points on an Allen House request.

You seemed to have missed something. Weeks members do NOT have the ability to snatch anything in the Points system, just whatever RCI decides to give back to Weeks, if anything. An RCI employee on the TimeshareTalk board said that RCI put NOTHING back in the Weeks system for inventory taken out by Points members. Weeks members would have the integrity of our system restored if there was a complete divorce between the systems.

So basically, you have not conducted any of these searches yourself, have no first-hand knowledge of how these searches work, but insist on drawing inferfences nevertheless? That's fine, at least we know from what point of reference you are working from. If you ever decide to actually conduct searches in Points, I would be very interested to know your thoughts at that point.

As for your friend whom was able to obtain a Christmas week in Vienna, what you have left out of your statement is that necessarily, this had to be an exchange within the 45-day time frame. That means that your friend may have obtained that week 45 days out or 1 week out. That makes a big difference. Besides, I will be the first to say that there are some great weeks to be obtained through Points in Weeks within the 45-day time-frame.

As for your statement that:

"Points members should be required to play with their own marbles and not be able to snatch them out of the Weeks game"

I hope that you are prepared to say the same thing for People in Weeks. As I stated above, Weeks people are snatching weeks and units all day long from the Points system. I suspect that many people are not quite willing to let go of their ability to do so.

 

[Carolinian]

While I don't have access to exchange history, I do know the rental and resale prices on the OBX. A week 33-35 will rent for two to three times what a week 43 will, and it MUCH easier to rent out. A week 33 will sell for $3-5,000. while a week 43 is not difficult to acquire for $500. These are VERY unequal weeks, as shown by the market.

Children are still out of school in week 33 (mandated by the legislature) in North Carolina and it is still beach weather. Week 43 is a decent fishing week, but not swimming in the ocean weather.

While I agree that value starts dropping after week 32, the drop is gradual, not the dramatic drop that occurs with RCI Point values. Week 43 is substantially overvalued and week 33 is substantially undervalued. Thats what happens with the overaveraging. A week 43 owner may make out like a bandit to put his week in points, but a week 33 owner would be a fool to do so. He would be much better off either using a weeks based exchange system or renting his week out and using the money for cut-rate RCI rentals.

With the crossover grids, the situation is worse. There a week 41 in October has the same value as a week 27 (July 4th). Wacky! Again, someone using a week 41 for Points for Deposit may be a wise man, but someone using a week 27 for that purpose is a fool. A Points member doing a crossover trade for a week 27 is raiding Weeks big time, but one doing so for a week 41 doesn't have his brain in gear yet!

Actually because of the start of school in many areas there is a big drop off in value starting with week 33 and running through the high fall period. That coincides with the period you are highlighting. The same drop occurs all along the east coast and even in the less seasonal areas such as Orlando. When the kids can't go that has a real effect on many families ability to travel. For the coastal areas it also happens to fall in prime hurricane season which would also tend to lower value in that general.

The way points works does involve averaging values rather than strict week X worth Y valuation. That is not a bad thing until you focus in on one specific use week and say it's out of line. Viewed as the overall use period of weeks 33 to 43 the value is correct. Same with the weeks 26-32 being much higher value as they are the true prime use weeks for the east coast. Averaging values gives points users a better chance at all use times rather than focusing in on a valuable week or two and shutting all others out. It doesn't give the big bonus to the few limited buyers of those specific weeks but spreads the wealth over all buyers that have enough points to reserve in those prime periods.

As long as people buy in knowing what the values are - and in points they do - the field is level. The existing weeks owners that are used to the bonus value of a week 26 won't see it in points - but they also don't have to join if they wish to keep their fixed week and trade it in one of the weeks systems. If they do join points they will get the maximum value for that time but it may not be as high as the standalone week had by itself. Again if they don't like what they would get then they don't have to join the points party. No one is forcing them to. If there are no deposits from those resorts then no matter which side you reserve from - weeks or points - there isn't any inventory to claim. The owners, not RCI, still hold the ultimate control of depositing or not. The question is once you do deposit how do you have the best chance of getting fair value back out. In some cases it may be through weeks but I've found the majority of the time I do better with points. Everyone needs to be informed on both and use the right tool and hopefully hiding between the overblown rhetoric there are enough facts for readers to gain some insight on what will work for them. Focusing on one geographical area or one perception of the process doesn't really offer much insight. I like to see the experiences from many owners and different approaches used so we can all learn.

 

[JeffV]

I take back what I was tempted to say.

 

[Dani]

You seemed to have missed something. Weeks members do NOT have the ability to snatch anything in the Points system, just whatever RCI decides to give back to Weeks, if anything. An RCI employee on the TimeshareTalk board said that RCI put NOTHING back in the Weeks system for inventory taken out by Points members. Weeks members would have the integrity of our system restored if there was a complete divorce between the systems.

I have not missed a thing...I assume that you have heard of PFD

 

[Carolinian]

I have not missed a thing...I assume that you have heard of PFD

PFD is used by POINTS members, not Weeks members. It does not give a Weeks member access to Points inventory!

 

[Dani]

PFD is used by POINTS members, not Weeks members. It does not give a Weeks member access to Points inventory!

What it does is give people who are in Points the opportunity to use Weeks that are not in Points the opportunity to use those weeks within the Points system. I think that you can figure out the net effect of this....especially in light of the over-pointing of certain weeks.

 

[boyblue]

PFD is used by POINTS members, not Weeks members. It does not give a Weeks member access to Points inventory!

No but it does give Weeks members access to weeks we put into PFD a year ahead of points members.

Given your argument, in situations where the points system encourages members to deposit because of "overpointing" the weeks members benefit because they see those weeks. If it's a combination points/weeks resort, weeks members see it first.

 

[Bill4728]

I was able to trade my 1 bd, week 40 Riviera Beach (in SoCal) for a 2 bd, week 40, Marriott Newport Beach ( 15 miles down the road). How is any trade like that possible in RCI points? It isn't.

Yes, RCI points does have their good points, but when I get that kind of up-grade, I'm a weeks fan!

 

[timeos2]

Great trade - proof of the problem

I was able to trade my 1 bd, week 40 Riviera Beach (in SoCal) for a 2 bd, week 40, Marriott Newport Beach ( 15 miles down the road). How is any trade like that possible in RCI points? It isn't.

Yes, RCI points does have their good points, but when I get that kind of up-grade, I'm a weeks fan!

Bill - Thats great but it also proves exactly what is so basically unfair in the week for week system. You got a great upgrade but what is awaiting the 2bd, week 40 owner? Does he take your week - an obvious downgrade by your own words - or does he also grab something better? Even if he does what does the "better" owner take? Somewhere in the path a top value week owner has to lose their time or take a significant downgrade just to get something. Now some may willingly take a location vs size or quality trade but most likely most want something equal or better than what they gave up. There aren't enough units to give you and many others upgrades and fulfill the equal trades of those top weeks. Plus what about all the lesser time at the bottom that was used to upgrade from. Where does that go? See why there is a need to rent or it will sit unused? And should only the bottom deposits be rented? What are they worth? Nope - there needs to be a cross section of rentals to even the system out. It is the fatal flaw in week for week time. It is weeks owners that are raiding weeks not Points traders.

Now you could get that same week in points but it wouldn't be a free upgrade anymore - you would pay more points than your deposit was worth. And that better weeks owner would have more points to spend. That is a market in action vs the fixed, week for week, secret barter of the bad old days.

Now both work right now and in fact some times a knowledgable weeks owner can do better (as in cheaper) than a points owner. There can be a cost for the ease of points trades in some cases vs the luck or skill of weeks. But as the pool of weeks dries up either from owners switching to points, renting directly rather than through RCI or the units go to mini-systems those trades will decline. That trend has already been well documented and blamed, incorrectly IMHO, on rentals. It is actually the slow end to weeks as the primary trade method that was happening with or without RCI Points coming along.

 

[Carolinian]

No but it does give Weeks members access to weeks we put into PFD a year ahead of points members.

Given your argument, in situations where the points system encourages members to deposit because of "overpointing" the weeks members benefit because they see those weeks. If it's a combination points/weeks resort, weeks members see it first.

The overpointed weeks are not the prime weeks however. They are more marginal weeks as to season, location, or both.

 

[Carolinian]

How systems handle oversupply

The real problem for exchange systems is oversupply, and how they handle it tells a lot about which system is best for exchangers and which is best for RCI.

In Weeks, the adjsutment for supply and demand of the market kicks in when an oversupply situation occurs, cheapening the price in trading power. A member then is able to make the trade and have a smile on his face. In reality it is not a trade up, as the market has said it is an equal trade based on the market forces of supply and demand.

In Points, where there are no market forces of supply and demand, the inventory just sits there until it becomes ''excess'' for RCI to rent off to non-members for a profit.

Which system is really better for timeshare owner/exchangers? In Weeks, an oversupply situation puts those weeks in the hands of timeshare owner/exchangers who support their HOAs with m/f's and support RCI with annual dues. In Points, they end up in the hands of non-member renters who do neither.

Bill - Thats great but it also proves exactly what is so basically unfair in the week for week system. You got a great upgrade but what is awaiting the 2bd, week 40 owner? Does he take your week - an obvious downgrade by your own words - or does he also grab something better? Even if he does what does the "better" owner take? Somewhere in the path a top value week owner has to lose their time or take a significant downgrade just to get something. Now some may willingly take a location vs size or quality trade but most likely most want something equal or better than what they gave up. There aren't enough units to give you and many others upgrades and fulfill the equal trades of those top weeks. Plus what about all the lesser time at the bottom that was used to upgrade from. Where does that go? See why there is a need to rent or it will sit unused? And should only the bottom deposits be rented? What are they worth? Nope - there needs to be a cross section of rentals to even the system out. It is the fatal flaw in week for week time. It is weeks owners that are raiding weeks not Points traders.

Now you could get that same week in points but it wouldn't be a free upgrade anymore - you would pay more points than your deposit was worth. And that better weeks owner would have more points to spend. That is a market in action vs the fixed, week for week, secret barter of the bad old days.

Now both work right now and in fact some times a knowledgable weeks owner can do better (as in cheaper) than a points owner. There can be a cost for the ease of points trades in some cases vs the luck or skill of weeks. But as the pool of weeks dries up either from owners switching to points, renting directly rather than through RCI or the units go to mini-systems those trades will decline. That trend has already been well documented and blamed, incorrectly IMHO, on rentals. It is actually the slow end to weeks as the primary trade method that was happening with or without RCI Points coming along.

 

[Carolinian]

A better week, does not necessarily have more points to spend. In the corrupt cesspool of RCI Points numbers many weeks are cheated and many are overpointed. This results from a number of factors, including pandering to developers in sales, overaveraging necessitated by limitations of publication space that relies on a paper and ink system, and the fact that the term ''sold out resort'' has a sinister double meaning in the corrupt world of RCI Points.

Bill - Thats great but it also proves exactly what is so basically unfair in the week for week system. You got a great upgrade but what is awaiting the 2bd, week 40 owner? Does he take your week - an obvious downgrade by your own words - or does he also grab something better? Even if he does what does the "better" owner take? Somewhere in the path a top value week owner has to lose their time or take a significant downgrade just to get something. Now some may willingly take a location vs size or quality trade but most likely most want something equal or better than what they gave up. There aren't enough units to give you and many others upgrades and fulfill the equal trades of those top weeks. Plus what about all the lesser time at the bottom that was used to upgrade from. Where does that go? See why there is a need to rent or it will sit unused? And should only the bottom deposits be rented? What are they worth? Nope - there needs to be a cross section of rentals to even the system out. It is the fatal flaw in week for week time. It is weeks owners that are raiding weeks not Points traders.

Now you could get that same week in points but it wouldn't be a free upgrade anymore - you would pay more points than your deposit was worth. And that better weeks owner would have more points to spend. That is a market in action vs the fixed, week for week, secret barter of the bad old days.

Now both work right now and in fact some times a knowledgable weeks owner can do better (as in cheaper) than a points owner. There can be a cost for the ease of points trades in some cases vs the luck or skill of weeks. But as the pool of weeks dries up either from owners switching to points, renting directly rather than through RCI or the units go to mini-systems those trades will decline. That trend has already been well documented and blamed, incorrectly IMHO, on rentals. It is actually the slow end to weeks as the primary trade method that was happening with or without RCI Points coming along.