RCI Weeks to offer value transparency

[Carolinian]

Speaking of the May 2009 events which RCI swore did not change trading power, but Tuggers and other astute timesharers could easily see that in fact it did, here is a good thread from TS4MS:

http://www.timeshareforums.com/forums/rci/93191-how-big-yours-34.html#post409155

How can anyone not completely gullible take anything RCI says about trading power at face value after events like these?

So-called ''Black Sunday'' on SA trading is another similar situation.

After 26-27 years of dealing with RCI, I can tell you that no change is going to be good for RCI's exchange customers.

As I said before, my studio units in Myrtle Beach are tigers now, but I don't expect things to stay that way. Suddenly the value of that week will decrease, because they will "re-evaluate" exchange power, and I will be disappointed in the result.

RCI is going to take two weeks for one, a simple way to double their rental inventory. Not nearly the deal the head salesman at Jungle Cruise is offering: "He will give two heads for just one of yours...."

I am worried. Supposedly no change in trade power, but that is what they said after 5/30/2009, when they drastically reduced the trading power to all five of my deposited weeks, then denied the entire fiasco.

Fortunately, the trading power is almost back to the way it was for some of my weeks. I can only say I am concerned for the future of RCI trades and hope John is right when he says trading power won't be affected. We will see.

 

[Mel]

Another tidbit from the land of the evil empire. Thou shalth not combine two weeks trading power credits to get a super week. Only credit left from a trade can be applied.

Which makes sense. The key driver for this change is more revenue. And yes, the 45 day credit example is one of the ways the weeks system could be manipulated. Now points and weeks members can get shot at cheap last minute inventory.

I seriously doubt this, because RCI published otherwise (see Michael's Quote) in Endless Vacation magazine. I can't see them publishing something like that to all the members, and then not doing it.

As for the lock-off units, we all know that historically, they have been more valueable as independent units. But that could change (or could have already).

Have they been more valuable only in the sense that the combined units didn't have enough of a boost over the larger of the 2 sides to make a big difference? If the combined unit is worth 40 credits, and the individual parts 15 and 25, it makes a big difference if RCI doesn't have much inventory in the 30-40 credit range. Also, of the 15 and 25 credit units are deposited a year out, that 25 may still be good enough to exchange into a "40" at 6 months when its value is reduced low enough

We also don't know if RCI balanced those units out in the past 6 months or so. If they did, we might not yet see the effect. Such a change could also account for some of the major changes people saw in their trade power - did the trade power of their weeks change, or did the trade power required for other weeks change? I can see it being to RCI's advantage to have more deposits (resulting in more exchange fees),

One more thing we will have to watch for when the system goes live. Anyone have a lockoff they're thinking of depositing in late November?

 

[Tommart]

Deposited Both Sides of a Locked-Unit

.....

As for the lock-off units, we all know that historically, they have been more valueable as independent units. But that could change (or could have already).

Have they been more valuable only in the sense that the combined units didn't have enough of a boost over the larger of the 2 sides to make a big difference? If the combined unit is worth 40 credits, and the individual parts 15 and 25, it makes a big difference if RCI doesn't have much inventory in the 30-40 credit range. Also, of the 15 and 25 credit units are deposited a year out, that 25 may still be good enough to exchange into a "40" at 6 months when its value is reduced low enough

We also don't know if RCI balanced those units out in the past 6 months or so. If they did, we might not yet see the effect. Such a change could also account for some of the major changes people saw in their trade power - did the trade power of their weeks change, or did the trade power required for other weeks change? I can see it being to RCI's advantage to have more deposits (resulting in more exchange fees),

One more thing we will have to watch for when the system goes live. Anyone have a lockoff they're thinking of depositing in late November?

Well, I own locked-units and I called RCI before depositing them a week ago and I asked if I should wait until after the change in RCI weeks before I made my deposit.

She claimed that there will be no change in the way units are rated. Units have always been given a numerical rating. RCI just would not tell members what the rating was. In fact, I would hurt my score if I delayed because I get extra credits for deposit up to 9 months prior to check-in.

So I deposited them as two one-bedrooms and each seems to have similar trading power as in the past. Each has available 104K weeks world-wide. I'll wonder if this will change after the new system is implemented.

Note that the RCI Points system grid for the SE US for Red Gold-Crown weeks is 45,500 points for a one-bedroom and 60,500 for a two-bedroom. I would expect a similar ratio with the RCI Weeks Program ratings.

And I do not believe that if I would have only deposited one-bedroom I would receive a credit less than a non-locked one-bedroom.

Tom

 

[Carolinian]

To be safe, I would print off what you can trade them for now, and compare it after the change. That is the best way to tell if they have monkeyed with the numbers. For those of you who want to beleive RCI's claims, I suggest you follow the words of a former president ''Trust, but verify''

Well, I own locked-units and I called RCI before depositing them a week ago and I asked if I should wait until after the change in RCI weeks before I made my deposit.

She claimed that there will be no change in the way units are rated. Units have always been given a numerical rating. RCI just would not tell members what the rating was. In fact, I would hurt my score because I get extra credits for deposit up to 9 months prior to check-in.

So I deposited them as two one-bedrooms and each seems to have similar trading power as in the past. Each has available 104K weeks world-wide. I'll wonder if this will change after the new system is implemented.

Note that the RCI Points system grid for the SE US for Red Gold-Crown weeks is 45,500 points for a one-bedroom and 60,500 for a two-bedroom. I would expect a similar ratio with the RCI Weeks Program ratings.

Tom

 

[Mel]

After 26-27 years of dealing with RCI, I can tell you that no change is going to be good for RCI's exchange customers.

As I said before, my studio units in Myrtle Beach are tigers now, but I don't expect things to stay that way. Suddenly the value of that week will decrease, because they will "re-evaluate" exchange power, and I will be disappointed in the result.

RCI is going to take two weeks for one, a simple way to double their rental inventory. Not nearly the deal the head salesman at Jungle Cruise is offering: "He will give two heads for just one of yours...."

I am worried. Supposedly no change in trade power, but that is what they said after 5/30/2009, when they drastically reduced the trading power to all five of my deposited weeks, then denied the entire fiasco.

Fortunately, the trading power is almost back to the way it was for some of my weeks. I can only say I am concerned for the future of RCI trades and hope John is right when he says trading power won't be affected. We will see.

We have those that want the trading power to be static, and those that want it to be dynamic. I prefer dynamic, but I also understand that means someone's trading power is going to go down when someone else's goes up.

I suspect what happened in May of 2009 was a major adjustment to the trade power of many units (though not necessarily to the ones where we "saw" the differences). Looking at one member's deposits isn't going to tell the whole story, nor is looking at the deposits of what amounts to a small percentage of the membership, particularly when that group is self-selected, and does not own a truly borad range of weeks.

Countless times on these boards we've heard arguments about how RCI overvalues or undervalues certain weeks. But most of those arguments hinge on individual preferences - who prefers location over amenities, who cares more about being on the beach vs across the street, or ski-in vs 2 miles from the slopes (or even the difference between staying onsite as Disney vs a larger unit offsite).

At least under this new system we should have a better sense of the value of our holdings. If I'm planning to travel overseas, I have to exchange my currency. Part of my planning includes the comparative cost of everything in the other currency. The cost of Pertol in England may not have risen, but if the value of the Dollar has dropped, it has in effect risen for me. Or perhaps the value of the Dollar remains stable vs. Pounds Sterling, but the price of Petrol and everything else has gone up, reducing the value of both. I don't see this new system as being much different than that. In essesnce, I use my week to buy a gift certificate to RCI's space bank, to use later. The prices of everything in that bank may fluctuate, so it behooves me to spend my gift certificate wisely.

If RCI were simply an exchange company, as they once were, they would undoubtedly be forced to adjust numbers to market. But, once again, the problem is now that RCI is as they describe themselves a ''rental and exchange company'' and that makes the dynamics very different. Even in the old scenario, they would likely to willing to allow some fudged numbers as a loss leader to attract some developers, from whom they would expect to get lots of new members. The situation is not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be.

When RCI has done a whole lot of things that have NOT been good for members, like their rentals to the general public, there is simply no good reason to think that this is any different. Their use of the Orwellian corporate-speak term ''enhancements'' which in the real world usually means the exact opposite certainly is not something that gives much confidence, either!

You do not see any of these changes as enhancements, others do. They are not Orwellian enhancements, they are in fact things members have been asking for, things new TUG members have wished for whenever they have found us - "I wish I knew what my week was really worth" "I wish I knew ahead of time what would be a reasonable expectation for a trade..." Some people will "lose" with this new change, because they will have to relearn how to manipulate the system to their advantage. So be it. Some members have always have advantages over others, and I would prefer knowing about those advantages, rather than speculating. Am I not seeing the Hawaii week I want because it hasn't been deposited, or because I don't have enough trade power? The answer to that question is likely to impact whether I modify my request, or wait for what I want.

 

[Bourne]

Speaking of the May 2009 events which RCI swore did not change trading power,

That statement is technically true.

Define trading power.

Is it an attribute set for the deposited week? If yes, the trading power did not change.

Is it the end user's ability to access certian weeks vs others? If yes, then trading power did change because more bands were added. For those sitting on lower/higher end of the band, it would have made a difference as it would allow you to see more or see less.

Then again, bad news is always reported. Because it sells. Its fashionable to "crib". Even in a friendly forum like TUG, when someone strikes gold, they tend to keep quiet about it than let everyone know about it. In my 10 years+ of timesharing and half being on TUG, I have only seen one thread where members laid their "cards out". And even then, it was predominantly the newbies...

 

[Bourne]

To clarify the above statement...

The trading power of the existing deposit did not change. That said, assigning trading power to new deposits is always fluid and moves from week to week. Infact, you may not get the same level each year of the exact same week deposited exact months out because demand and supply is fluid.

 

[Mel]

Bourne, this is exactly the same fear people have had about point systems from the beginning, even though in the end they are no different than using trade power.

Your week is what it is worth - you are given points, credits, or trade value based on that worth. It should be able to trade back for itself, and similar weeks. But as new resorts are added to the system, you might not be able to trade directly for them. That may be because they are newer, and are slightly nicer resorts, or are more posh. Or it might be because their newness triggers more interest among other exchangers, driving demand up. Even if they are much like your own resort was the day it opened, the reality is that your resort is older and more "worn."

What you are stating is exactly what I was trying to get at. We still had the same amount of "money" in our pockets, but the number of items available at that price changed, due to less "rounding."

If RCI in fact has fewer bands now than there will be in late November, than we can expect some resorts (in the lower portions of the currently existing bands) to be eligible for straight exchange into fewer resorts once the change happens. If people who are concerned about this track waht is available now, they will be able to look at the results after the change and see if the change makes sense. (Their week is a 45, and some of the weeks they used to get are now 46 or 47).

 

[stevedmatt]

Your week is what it is worth - you are given points, credits, or trade value based on that worth.

This brings up some questions for me. Will the trading value they determine be in proportion to the rental price they request in "extra vacations"? What about in the 60-45-30 day window when these rental prices drop significantly, will my one week then be able to pick up 3,4, or 5 of these last minute weeks since no one else seemingly wanted them at "full price"?

This is just a version of points. I am not upset with the concept but I know that RCI wouldn't be doing this to benefit their customers. This, no doubt, will just increase their bottom line.

 

[bnoble]

No one (other than RCI employees who have presumably signed non-disclosure agreements) knows for sure what's going to happen. There's a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) that surrounds any change. But, no matter what happens we will quickly figure out how to best take advantage of it.

 

[Carolinian]

Apparently you did not fully read his post. By creating additional bands, RCI DID, as many Tuggers observed with their own weeks, change trading power. They narrowed the range that members could trade in. Trading power involves the whole process, the valuation in, the valuation out, and what range of numbers you have access to. RCI was dishonestly playing a shell game with members by trying to focus on only one aspect of the process. That is the sort of entity that you trust blindly in its statements on the new system not making any changes. There's a term for that. It's called gullibility. There is an old saying I think that fits this situation. It is ''fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me''.

Bourne, this is exactly the same fear people have had about point systems from the beginning, even though in the end they are no different than using trade power.

Your week is what it is worth - you are given points, credits, or trade value based on that worth. It should be able to trade back for itself, and similar weeks. But as new resorts are added to the system, you might not be able to trade directly for them. That may be because they are newer, and are slightly nicer resorts, or are more posh. Or it might be because their newness triggers more interest among other exchangers, driving demand up. Even if they are much like your own resort was the day it opened, the reality is that your resort is older and more "worn."

What you are stating is exactly what I was trying to get at. We still had the same amount of "money" in our pockets, but the number of items available at that price changed, due to less "rounding."

If RCI in fact has fewer bands now than there will be in late November, than we can expect some resorts (in the lower portions of the currently existing bands) to be eligible for straight exchange into fewer resorts once the change happens. If people who are concerned about this track waht is available now, they will be able to look at the results after the change and see if the change makes sense. (Their week is a 45, and some of the weeks they used to get are now 46 or 47).

 

["Roger"]

A little mathematics (sorry) to help clarify what happens when "bands" are added. Two posts, one for points (actually a double switch, new bands and a switch from weeks to points) and a second one for straight Weeks (where something very different can happen).

Let us start with just two bands (to simplify) with ten people rated at 20 and ten at 10. Let us also take what some people might consider a terrible scenario (just what you would expect from RCI) where RCI "lowers" half of the people when it creates new bands. ("Lowers" turns out to be an inappropriate word.) After the new bands are created, there are five people each at the levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. Now lets look at each of the four new groups:

The people at 5: They are definitely worse off. Before they could make an even trade to ten resorts, now they can only make an even trade to five. (The five that are considered comparable to their own resort.)

The people at 10: They are winners. They can trade for the same ten resorts that they could before. They have lost nothing in that regard. In addition, for five of those resorts, they can trade two for one. Finally, whereas before, they could not trade for any of the units rated 20, they can now do so. It would take a year and a half to trade for one of the units rated at 15, two years for a unit at 20. (Not great, but these trades were simply unavailable to them before.)

The people at 15: Modest losers. They can't trade for all the units that they used to even up. (Actually, what they can't do is "trade up" at the one to one ratio for the units rated 20 as before. There was a reason that they were not maintained at the 20 level - their units are not as good.) However, now when they trade for a unit at the 10 level, they still have change (extra points) to apply to some future trade.

The people at 20: Big winners. They can trade for everything (as before), but now get change whenever they trade down.

Summary -- Dividing into more bands will create winners and losers. There is no mathematical scenario in which everyone loses.

 

["Roger"]

Yeah, but what happens when you add bands in a Weeks system.

Now there is real possibility for no winnners (except for RCI). Do the same split described in the prior post (with half the units being given lower trading value). Add to that a proviso that no one is allowed to trade up.

What happens now is that whenever anyone trades down, a unit is left that is too expensive for anyone to afford. (Suppose, in the extreme, all of the owners of the units rated 20 trade for units rated 15. Now, no one is left who can afford the units rated 20.)

In this scenario, RCI can skim off the expensive units and use them for rentals. That is what the Weeks system does, enable skimming and rentals.

I am not saying that this is what occurs, but, for those who are forever suspicious of RCI and hate rentals, the worst thing that you can do is argue for the continuation of the one-for-one Weeks system.

 

[Mel]

Apparently you did not fully read his post. By creating additional bands, RCI DID, as many Tuggers observed with their own weeks, change trading power. They narrowed the range that members could trade in. Trading power involves the whole process, the valuation in, the valuation out, and what range of numbers you have access to. RCI was dishonestly playing a shell game with members by trying to focus on only one aspect of the process. That is the sort of entity that you trust blindly in its statements on the new system not making any changes. There's a term for that. It's called gullibility. There is an old saying I think that fits this situation. It is ''fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me''.

I did in fact read the whole thread, and understood what he was saying. The actual trade power of the weeks in question did not change - her said that it was technically correct that they did not change. What changed was how those numbers were used.

Assuming RCI assigns trade values in a range from 1 to 1000, and then splits them into 10 equal bands, your 605 week is in a band of all weeks from 601-700, and thus qualifies to trade for anything in that band or lower. If they then change to 20 bands, your 605 is STILL a 605, but can no longer trade into anything above 650. If they change to 100 bands, you can no longer trade into anything above 610. They have not change the trading power, but your ability to trade has been diminished. From the perspective of someone with a 695, this is a benefit because it reduces the demand on the weeks in the upper half of the 601-700 band, In essesnce, that 695 became a more powerful trader, though the owner of that week won't necessarily "see" any difference.

It would be no different if RCI kept the bands intact, but increased the trade power of everything by 50 points, shifting the top half of the band into a higher band. The net effect is you lose the ability to trade into those weeks, though YOUR trade power has not changed.

Since those weeks that were a trade up did in fact have a higher trade power, RCI does not consider them like-for-like trades. Obviously RCI is tightening their definition of what is like-for-like. Some of the other exchange companies have similar policies. You like II, but how many members here are thrilled that they can only place limited requests for 2BR units with their top 1BR week? Sure, if a 2BR is available they can get it, but if they have to use a search, they are stuck requesting a 1BR, and II makes it difficult for them to refuse that 1BR when it appears.

If people won't like the way RCI operates, they have other options. Go ahead and use them, but understand that RCI has a program that works well for some of us, just as II works well for others. The new system sounds fair to me - for the member who only wants to trade once every 3 years, perhaps RCI isn't what they want anyway. For the person who trades most years, it should work well. That slight trade up (the one you saw pre 5/2009 but not after) will have to be balanced with a slight trade down. Sounds fair to me. Yes, it means having to bank another week to use a few of its points, but that's just RCI's way of encouraging repeat customers, or loyalty. If you don't wish to be a loyal customer, then you don't get the benefit of shifting your points to get the trades you want.

 

[Tommart]

BAnds

I agree that narrowing bands makes it more difficult to trade for a better unit within the band. This is to RCI's advantage.

And if RCI abolishes bands under the new approach, it makes it impossible to trade evenly for a unit with a higher rating even if the two units were formerly in the same band. This is the extreme narrowing of bands. Each band is one point.

It is unclear whether bands will be abolished under the new system. But to me, it makes sense to abolish them, and I'm OK with that. Based on what I know now, I like the increased flexibility that the new approach will bring.

In the past, I've taken 2-bedrooms, when I only needed one. I might not do that in the future. In fact, if my week is worth 600 credits, I might take a 300 point week rather than the 500 point I took in the past. If I want to exchange for a 800 point week, I'll have that option as well.

 

[timeos2]

In the past, I've taken 2-bedrooms, when I only needed one. I might not do that in the future. In fact, if my week is worth 600 credits, I might take a 300 point week rather than the 500 point I took in the past. If I want to exchange for a 800 point week, I'll have that option as well.

This is what occurs in well run points systems as well. It is a big positive as it helps people get good value out rather than taking "all you can eat" just because you can. The whole system tends to be self leveling when users have to pay the real value for what they take but also get true value for what they give in.

 

[AwayWeGo]

New Points Lite Seems Like Less Of A Shot In The Dark Than Old RCI Weeks.

This is what occurs in well run points systems as well. It is a big positive as it helps people get good value out rather than taking "all you can eat" just because you can.

So, it looks like RCI will be rolling out side-by-side points systems -- New Points Lite alongside conventional RCI Points.

Is that about the size of it ?

If so, I want to know whether I can use my New Points Lite "change back" for conventional RCI Points PFD, or whether I'll be limited under New Points Lite to using any "change back" that I get only for other New Points Lite exchanges.

Unless they publish a New Points Lite PFD grid, I can only assume that use of New Points Lite "change back" will be limited to other New Points Lite exchanges.

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

 

[Mel]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a new conversion grid, or perhaps a conversion factor - each Credit is worth so many points. Under such a system, they might even allow PFD forlater deposits, because they would already be discounted.

With this new published system, someone could potentially track what RCI puts into the system from outside, and what they remove for rentals, and see how the credits balance. In fact, this suggests that perhaps RCI isn't really in collusion with certain resorts which seem to be over-rated, but looking out for their own interests.

However they get them, RCI has loads of deposits from resorts in development - not deposited by members, but developer inventory.
Some members want access to those weeks, so RCI injects them into the system, taking other weeks out as a balance. If RCI gives high credit values to those deposits, they are able to take more out for rentals. But they do have to be careful, because if they don't give enough credits (and charge themselves more) for those weeks, the owners won't deposit them, and they won't be available to take out for rentals.

The problem I see is that we all want access to some of those new resorts, but maybe not all of them. How to allow RCI to infuse weeks from the resorts we want without dumping weeks from the resorts we don't want? I don't know, but I suspect over time the system will correct itself - as they "reward" themselves with high credit values for those weeks, they also have to reward members who own them as well. As those resorts sell out, RCI will have less incentive to overvalue any of those weeks.

I don't think RCI is in collusion with the developers, I think the developers just happen to benefit for RCI looking out for its own interests.

 

[Carolinian]

Tightening definitions for ''like for like'' is how RCI creates more ''excess'' for them to divert to rentals. That helps RCI but hurts the members. I know you consistently defend RCI rentals, but most here feel otherwise. I am not surprised that RCI's new exchange regime sounds fair to you as I do not recall your ever having found any of RCI's practices unfair.

I did in fact read the whole thread, and understood what he was saying. The actual trade power of the weeks in question did not change - her said that it was technically correct that they did not change. What changed was how those numbers were used.

Assuming RCI assigns trade values in a range from 1 to 1000, and then splits them into 10 equal bands, your 605 week is in a band of all weeks from 601-700, and thus qualifies to trade for anything in that band or lower. If they then change to 20 bands, your 605 is STILL a 605, but can no longer trade into anything above 650. If they change to 100 bands, you can no longer trade into anything above 610. They have not change the trading power, but your ability to trade has been diminished. From the perspective of someone with a 695, this is a benefit because it reduces the demand on the weeks in the upper half of the 601-700 band, In essesnce, that 695 became a more powerful trader, though the owner of that week won't necessarily "see" any difference.

It would be no different if RCI kept the bands intact, but increased the trade power of everything by 50 points, shifting the top half of the band into a higher band. The net effect is you lose the ability to trade into those weeks, though YOUR trade power has not changed.

Since those weeks that were a trade up did in fact have a higher trade power, RCI does not consider them like-for-like trades. Obviously RCI is tightening their definition of what is like-for-like. Some of the other exchange companies have similar policies. You like II, but how many members here are thrilled that they can only place limited requests for 2BR units with their top 1BR week? Sure, if a 2BR is available they can get it, but if they have to use a search, they are stuck requesting a 1BR, and II makes it difficult for them to refuse that 1BR when it appears.

If people won't like the way RCI operates, they have other options. Go ahead and use them, but understand that RCI has a program that works well for some of us, just as II works well for others. The new system sounds fair to me - for the member who only wants to trade once every 3 years, perhaps RCI isn't what they want anyway. For the person who trades most years, it should work well. That slight trade up (the one you saw pre 5/2009 but not after) will have to be balanced with a slight trade down. Sounds fair to me. Yes, it means having to bank another week to use a few of its points, but that's just RCI's way of encouraging repeat customers, or loyalty. If you don't wish to be a loyal customer, then you don't get the benefit of shifting your points to get the trades you want.

 

[Carolinian]

The best flexibility is trading within a band or range instead of being stuck with an exact number system. That is especially true when that published exact number is set by a non-transparent backroom system prone to manipulation by developers. An exact number system ends the flexibility of trading within a range. Having to tie up an extra week to get a few extra points lite is also limiting your flexibility because now you would lose the flexibility to do something else with that second week like rent it, use it yourself, or give it to a different exchange company. In many ways you lose flexibility with such a system.

I agree that narrowing bands makes it more difficult to trade for a better unit within the band. This is to RCI's advantage.

And if RCI abolishes bands under the new approach, it makes it impossible to trade evenly for a unit with a higher rating even if the two units were formerly in the same band. This is the extreme narrowing of bands. Each band is one point.

It is unclear whether bands will be abolished under the new system. But to me, it makes sense to abolish them, and I'm OK with that. Based on what I know now, I like the increased flexibility that the new approach will bring.

In the past, I've taken 2-bedrooms, when I only needed one. I might not do that in the future. In fact, if my week is worth 600 credits, I might take a 300 point week rather than the 500 point I took in the past. If I want to exchange for a 800 point week, I'll have that option as well.

 

[miamidan]

Carol,

I applaud you for your commitment to this cause. You may end up being dead right but, I think most of us have decided that we at least would like to know our value with one exchange company. If it does not work like you say there are alternatives. I believe we will know our trading power prior to banking as well. Seems like the most open system out there. Of course we have not seen it but, I am hoping it will be a breath of fresh air to know how any exchange company values my deposit inventory and what I want to exchange into. I might love it I might hate it but, at least I will somewhat know quantitatively why I love/hate it.

 

[sfwilshire]

I am sorry to say I just haven't had the time to follow all the posts on this topic. Will we still be able to "trade up" at 45 days? Or will that be gone?

I was planning to try to rent most of my weeks next year since I have too many on deposit. If they don't rent, I deposit them late, which may be a problem under the new system.

Sheila

 

[bnoble]

I don't think anyone knows for sure.

 

[miamidan]

The best flexibility is trading within a band or range instead of being stuck with an exact number system. That is especially true when that published exact number is set by a non-transparent backroom system prone to manipulation by developers. An exact number system ends the flexibility of trading within a range. Having to tie up an extra week to get a few extra points lite is also limiting your flexibility because now you would lose the flexibility to do something else with that second week like rent it, use it yourself, or give it to a different exchange company. In many ways you lose flexibility with such a system.

Maybe I am missing something but, it seems to me the only time trading within a band is flexible is if you are on the bottom end of that band. I for the life of me can't see why you would not want "change back" if what you requested was valued lower.

It would be nice if my maintenance fee were payable by bands. If the fees were between $401 and $449 then I would pay $450. If they were between $450 and $499 I would pay $500.

That would be a great deal until the fees reached $451 at which time I would become furious with the band system.

 

[jerseygirl]

Email From Starwood with Effective Date

Email from Starwood:

Dear Valued Owner,

RCI, LLC (RCI) recently announced to Resort affiliates that on November 15, 2010 changes will be implemented to the RCI® Weeks* program. You are receiving this email because our records indicate that you are currently or were previously a member of RCI. If you are no longer a member of RCI you may disregard this message.

The changes to the RCI Weeks program include:

1.The disclosure of the numeric Deposit Trading Power of all available deposited weeks in your member account
2.The disclosure of the numeric Exchange Trading Power required to confirm an available exchange week
3.The ability to combine multiple deposits from multiple RCI affiliated resorts and use years into a combined Deposit for a fee
4.Receive a Deposit Credit when you accept an exchange that requires less Exchange Trading Power than your Deposited Week to use for a future exchange
RCI indicates that they are not changing their established Trading Power formula; they are merely making it transparent to all RCI members. As a reminder, the calculation of the RCI Trading Power for any fixed weeks you have on deposit, or will deposit, will be determined by RCI based on:

•the demand, supply and utilization of your Vacation Time, and the Affiliated Resort and geographic regions associated with your Vacation Time;
•the seasonal designation of your Vacation Time;
•the size and type of your unit (i.e., number of bedrooms, kitchen type and maximum/private occupancy of the physical unit);
•comment card scores that RCI compiles from comments submitted by Members who visit your Resort;
•the date you place your Deposit with RCI, and the start date of the Deposited Vacation Time
Fixed week owners depositing your deeded week with RCI at least 9 months in advance of the start date of the week will be entitled to receive your maximum eligible trading power. Trading Power will decline for deposits received less than 9 months in advance. There are no changes to how you deposit your week with RCI (you will continue to contact RCI directly).


You can find more information regarding RCI’s Announcement in your most recent issue of Endless Vacation magazine. If you have additional questions regarding the RCI Weeks program changes, please contact RCI at 1-800-433-5400.


Sincerely
SVO Management Inc.

*These changes do not apply to RCI members who have enrolled your vacation ownership weeks in the RCI® Points program.