WEEKS owners - FACTS/QUESTIONS - new RCI Program

[cmh]

Has anyone tried:

Cancelling a pre-november exchange for a deposit that has passed?

For example - an exchange using a summer 2010 week for something "next year".

Did you get the week back as a "new week" - with Trade Power?
If you check the calculator for the resort/interval of the deposit for "next year" - did you get the calculated trade power or was it greatly different.

Were you able to "get your trade back" using the week and getting change back ?

(I have a 58 trade power week using a 2011 calcular with a 30 exchange - afraid to try cancel and "get it back".)

I too am interested in hearing about people's experiences with this.

 

[Carolinian]

So how does this hurt anyone other than RCI? Now that it's transparent, you and I can take advantage of these built-in inefficiencies.

As an Orlando owner, I can see why you jump to RCI's defense on this one, but you seem inclined to take RCI's side on most issues.

But the owner who is overpointed, now has those points to compete with other members to get prime inventory. If he had the 11 points his week was really worth, he could not trade into Allen House. With the 50 that RCI overpays him, he can snatch any week at Allen House and prevent owners who have weeks that are really equal to Allen House from getting them.

Our perspectives are quite different. I look at things in this order of priorities: 1) timeshare owner 2) HOA 3) exchange company. You seem to put #3 first.

 

[Maple_Leaf]

This isn't a true bid/ask spread...

I would have to agree with Carolinian. This new RCI system had an opportunity to be a big improvement; instead it just solidifies my view that RCI is in bed with timeshare developers. Take a look at the bid/ask spreads of different regions (the number of points required to trade into a timeshare vs the number of points being offered to deposit a timeshare for a given week - maybe RCI should calculate this by region and then publish and justify it). I own in Las Vegas where this bid/ask spread seems to be 0 - 3 points which I consider fair. California seems similar. Now take a look at Orlando, a total joke. The most egregious example there is Vacation Village at Parkway where it cost 7 points to trade into an Oct 15 week but you get 19 points for depositing it. But Vacation Village is not the only one. Sorry, I don't see the transparancy in assigning these point values. If RCI was subject to the same rules as stock trading or commodities trading, the SEC would be all over these guys.

It's more like two options transactions. The deposit is the sale of an option on a future week. The trade is the purchase of an option on a future week. Since these two transactions can occur at different points in time, there is a time value involved. As you get closer to expiry, the option becomes stale. Therefore a 9-month deposit gets full credits, a 9-day deposit 45%. A trade 7 days out should be for less than a trade 7 months out.

 

[miamidan]

So how does this hurt anyone other than RCI? Now that it's transparent, you and I can take advantage of these built-in inefficiencies.

As far as taking advantages of these advantages I have come close to pulling the trigger on some of these parkway units that are constantly available on ebay for nothing but, can not believe this massive difference will be constant as they have stated that trading power can and does change.

 

[miamidan]

As an Orlando owner, I can see why you jump to RCI's defense on this one, but you seem inclined to take RCI's side on most issues.

But the owner who is overpointed, now has those points to compete with other members to get prime inventory. If he had the 11 points his week was really worth, he could not trade into Allen House. With the 50 that RCI overpays him, he can snatch any week at Allen House and prevent owners who have weeks that are really equal to Allen House from getting them.

Our perspectives are quite different. I look at things in this order of priorities: 1) timeshare owner 2) HOA 3) exchange company. You seem to put #3 first.

Carolinian,

Please take this as a question and not as a defense of anyone. Obviously places like Orlando have a very High demand year round with one would assume thousands of people asking for them. Thus there is also a big supply.

You have used in my mind some obscure places as they are not places my family would go to.

If you look at demand worldwide I would assume that North America would have the highest demand in general due to the large number of North Americans member base.

Most of those members are drive to travellers

Tybee Island who many of us have never heard of what if it had a demand of 100 and a supply of 50

Orlando has a demand of 6000 and a supply of 5500
Although in simple math the demand is much higher for Orlando the supply demand ratio in Tybee is higher.

In your book which should have higher trading power? Thus what should be the overriding force supply vs. demand or Demand?

Please take this as a real question and use these numbers as hypotheticals. Please do not turn this into a strawman or changing goal posts etc. I am trying to understand your argument better.

On another note I would expect RCI to revalue those weeks currently valued at 50 and on sale for 11 or this will turn upside down on them quickly

 

[jlwquilter]

As an Orlando owner, I can see why you jump to RCI's defense on this one, but you seem inclined to take RCI's side on most issues.

But the owner who is overpointed, now has those points to compete with other members to get prime inventory. If he had the 11 points his week was really worth, he could not trade into Allen House. With the 50 that RCI overpays him, he can snatch any week at Allen House and prevent owners who have weeks that are really equal to Allen House from getting them.

Our perspectives are quite different. I look at things in this order of priorities: 1) timeshare owner 2) HOA 3) exchange company. You seem to put #3 first.

The fact is (although I have given up that facts really are what you look at) that the owner of an Allen type timeshare now knows exactly what he's getting and exactly what he can buy and can exactly make a better informed decision of what to do with his week, including take it somewhere other than RCI, now that he can see the exact value assigned to things. That allows the owner to "be number 1" if they choose to be.

The fact is there are always errors in any system. Our "job" here is to ferret them out and use them to our best advantage. That certainly allows us/owners to "be number 1" if we choose/learn to be.

The fact is, as I believe you have stated numerous times, is that HOAs have had dog week issues for a long time and have needed to come up with creative ideas to deal with them. The fact is that lots and lots of HOAs have not. That is not RCIs fault nor duty to solve.

And lastly, the fact is that stating facts does not make one a RCI defender or RCI hater. Ice is cold. Does that mean I love ice? Hate ice? Neither. It means ice is cold... how I feel about it at any moment is how that fact influences what I plan to do/react with the fact (in my warm drink I am happy about the fact. Down my shirt I am unhappy about the fact).

RCI gives so many points for a deposit. They charge so many credits for an exchange. Fact. RCI is a business and in business to make a profit. Fact. Being "fair" is not their job. Keeping resorts in business is not their job. Making me happy is not their job. It is my job to use their system, if I choose, to the fullest extent possible to make me happy.

We all use systems every day that are not "fair", that charge outrageous fees (banks for example), that clearly don't give a crap about their customers, etc. We have to pick and choose among them as best we can and exploit what we find there to our advantage as well. Using RCI is no different. Why should anyone expect them to be.

 

[Maple_Leaf]

On second thought...

It's more like two options transactions. The deposit is the sale of an option on a future week. The trade is the purchase of an option on a future week. Since these two transactions can occur at different points in time, there is a time value involved. As you get closer to expiry, the option becomes stale. Therefore a 9-month deposit gets full credits, a 9-day deposit 45%. A trade 7 days out should be for less than a trade 7 months out.

...maybe it is the bid/ask spread. I'm modeling a deposit as RCI selling you a call option for anything in their inventory valued 19 or below in exchange for an Oct 15 week at VV @ Parkway.

When you exchange you execute the call option and pay RCI the exchange fee and RCI gives you a week valued 19 or less + change. VV @ Parkway has a credit value of 7 for Oct 15 so if you exchanged back into your own week you get 12 credits for the price of an exchange fee. Hmmmm. Nothing to see here folks. Keep moving!:rofl:

 

[wrldtraveler]

RCI reduces the resale value of timeshares whose TPs aren't inflated

So how does this hurt anyone other than RCI? Now that it's transparent, you and I can take advantage of these built-in inefficiencies.

How does this hurt anyone other than RCI? At some point in the future, some people may want to sell their timeshare. Eventually prospective buyers who are primarily interested in trading will only look at two factors in making their purchase decision - how many TPs can I get per maintenance dollar, and the amortized cost of purchasing the timeshare (price I buy it at less my estimate of its future resale value when I eventually try to sell it, plus the opportunity cost of sinking my money into the purchase rather than investing it elsewhere). When RCI inflates the TPs per maintenance dollar of certain timeshares based upon non-market factors (sweetheart deals?), it reduces the resale value of my timeshare since I now have to compete against these other inflated TPs timeshares.

 

[MichaelColey]

As far as taking advantages of these advantages I have come close to pulling the trigger on some of these parkway units that are constantly available on ebay for nothing but, can not believe this massive difference will be constant as they have stated that trading power can and does change.

I wouldn't suggest taking advantage of those particular deals. I agree with you and others. RCI will eventually reign in those huge inefficiencies, like weeks that give you 50 for depositing but can be exchanged into for 11.

But there is a lot that has been revealed that we CAN take advantage of. Much of this was conventional wisdom before, but now we can see just how big of a difference it makes and make more informed choices.

1) Lockouts are a tremendous value. If a 1BR is valued at 25, a 2BR is valued at 28 and a 3BR is valued at 31, it's much better to split a 3BR lockout and deposit separately and get 53 rather than 31. With most resorts, maintenance fees aren't much more on larger units, so that makes them even better.

2) The best weeks have quite a bit better value. For most locations (even excluding extreme examples like week 51/52 in Orlando), the best weeks get 2-3 times the trading power of the worst weeks. Maintenance fees are typically the same, so it's worth paying a bit more to get a good week or a good choice of floating weeks.

3) Maintenance fees are very important, especially for exchangers. Paying $2k per year in maintenance to get a Tiger trader (35-60 TP) never was a good choice when you could get a pair of Tiger Cubs (25 TP each) with a 3BR lockout for under $600.

4) Holiday weeks are very valuable.

 

[Conan]

And lastly, the fact is that stating facts does not make one a RCI defender or RCI hater. Ice is cold. Does that mean I love ice? Hate ice? Neither. It means ice is cold...

We have to pick and choose among them as best we can and exploit what we find there to our advantage as well. Using RCI is no different. Why should anyone expect them to be.

You should not be participating in this thread - - what you are saying makes too much sense!

You too, Coley....

 

[Carolinian]

Tybee Island happens to be the sole resort close to Savannah, which most people have heard of, and is a rather popular tourist destination, and also has the benefit of being oceanfront. Often there are no weeks at all availible there, while inventory is wall to wall in Orlando. Yes there is a lot of demand for Orlando, but the problem is that supply greatly exceeds that demand. Orlando is an easy trade and a blue week anywhere has easily traded in there much of the year because the supply/demand curves are similar.

To most people, London and the French Riviera are hardly obscure. According to RCI employee Bootleg, Chaleston had the strongest demand for the supply of any place in the southeast. I take it you are not saying Charleston is obscure?

Bootleg also told us the major overbuilt areas in the US: Orlando, Branson, Williamsburg, and Massanutten.

As to the US versus Europe on timeshare demand, you should remember that timesharing originated in Europe with a Swiss company called Hapimag. Also RCI has had to protect European inventory for Europeans members to keep it from being raided by Americans by holding back some deposits that have been made availible only to European members. Also RCI has had a bonus arrangement for European members who would agree to trade into the US instead of Europe. It gave them 2 for 1 credits on their European deposits usable for exchanges to North America. That speaks volumes on the relative supply and demand between North America and Europe.

Carolinian,

Please take this as a question and not as a defense of anyone. Obviously places like Orlando have a very High demand year round with one would assume thousands of people asking for them. Thus there is also a big supply.

You have used in my mind some obscure places as they are not places my family would go to.

If you look at demand worldwide I would assume that North America would have the highest demand in general due to the large number of North Americans member base.

Most of those members are drive to travellers

Tybee Island who many of us have never heard of what if it had a demand of 100 and a supply of 50

Orlando has a demand of 6000 and a supply of 5500
Although in simple math the demand is much higher for Orlando the supply demand ratio in Tybee is higher.

In your book which should have higher trading power? Thus what should be the overriding force supply vs. demand or Demand?

Please take this as a real question and use these numbers as hypotheticals. Please do not turn this into a strawman or changing goal posts etc. I am trying to understand your argument better.

On another note I would expect RCI to revalue those weeks currently valued at 50 and on sale for 11 or this will turn upside down on them quickly

 

[miamidan]

Tybee Island happens to be the sole resort close to Savannah, which most people have heard of, and is a rather popular tourist destination, and also has the benefit of being oceanfront. Often there are no weeks at all availible there, while inventory is wall to wall in Orlando. Yes there is a lot of demand for Orlando, but the problem is that supply greatly exceeds that demand. Orlando is an easy trade and a blue week anywhere has easily traded in there much of the year because the supply/demand curves are similar.

To most people, London and the French Riviera are hardly obscure. According to RCI employee Bootleg, Chaleston had the strongest demand for the supply of any place in the southeast. I take it you are not saying Charleston is obscure?

Bootleg also told us the major overbuilt areas in the US: Orlando, Branson, Williamsburg, and Massanutten.

As to the US versus Europe on timeshare demand, you should remember that timesharing originated in Europe with a Swiss company called Hapimag. Also RCI has had to protect European inventory for Europeans members to keep it from being raided by Americans by holding back some deposits that have been made availible only to European members. Also RCI has had a bonus arrangement for European members who would agree to trade into the US instead of Europe. It gave them 2 for 1 credits on their European deposits usable for exchanges to North America. That speaks volumes on the relative supply and demand between North America and Europe.

Carolinian,

I was simply trying to get your opinion on a topic about trading power and we get this. Geeesh

 

[Carolinian]

Carolinian,

I was simply trying to get your opinion on a topic about trading power and we get this. Geeesh

So you did not want me to address the points you raised in your question? Geeesh!

 

[lolibeachgirl]

after reading the latest posts, I had to go back out to see if I was in the opinions thread or the facts thread...it is so hard to tell

fact-although demand vs supply can be thought of strictly in terms of # of units desired vs #of units available, you also have to consider mass volume for # of units desired as a factor, as others pointed out. Also, most people will want to stay somewhere they have heard of, vs a place they have never heard of. I know of London, would like to visit there someday, but have never heard of Allen House. If I looked for an exchange, I still probably will never had heard Allen House (if there is no availability as stated, it won't come up for me as a possible exchange). I know of Savannah, would like to visit there someday, but have never heard of Tybee Island. If I looked for an exchange, I still probably will never had heard of Tybee Island (same thing as applied to Allen House). I know of Disney in Orlando, would like to visit there someday, but I HAVE heard of several places to stay there, which are now available through exchage (sort of) with RCI. So in 3 examples, there is a difference in customer's knowledge and recognition of a resort.

fact-I love the line of thinking with the ice. It lightened up this thread a bit.

 

[Carolinian]

Most timesharers I know research the resorts they trade into through directory resources, these days being mainly online, and the reviews for the various resorts, rather than just what they have previously heard of. In timesharing, most of the time most people going to a new location would not know the names of resorts in that destination and would have to research them. Even if they do happen to know one or more resort names, most people research the place more thoroughly than just relying on having heard a name before. I use Allen House for London as it is much better located in central London rather than being out in the Docklands (boondocks) like Odessa Wharf. Again, location matters, as most tourists going to London want to be in central London. Again, in researching Savannah, you would find that Tybrissa on Tybee Island is the only timeshare in the immediate vacinity of Savannah. In researching Orlando, you will find a lot of resorts, and may well find something you had never heard of that suits you better than those you have heard of.

after reading the latest posts, I had to go back out to see if I was in the opinions thread or the facts thread...it is so hard to tell

fact-although demand vs supply can be thought of strictly in terms of # of units desired vs #of units available, you also have to consider mass volume for # of units desired as a factor, as others pointed out. Also, most people will want to stay somewhere they have heard of, vs a place they have never heard of. I know of London, would like to visit there someday, but have never heard of Allen House. If I looked for an exchange, I still probably will never had heard Allen House (if there is no availability as stated, it won't come up for me as a possible exchange). I know of Savannah, would like to visit there someday, but have never heard of Tybee Island. If I looked for an exchange, I still probably will never had heard of Tybee Island (same thing as applied to Allen House). I know of Disney in Orlando, would like to visit there someday, but I HAVE heard of several places to stay there, which are now available through exchage (sort of) with RCI. So in 3 examples, there is a difference in customer's knowledge and recognition of a resort.

fact-I love the line of thinking with the ice. It lightened up this thread a bit.

 

[miamidan]

Carolinian,

Please take this as a question and not as a defense of anyone. Obviously places like Orlando have a very High demand year round with one would assume thousands of people asking for them. Thus there is also a big supply.

You have used in my mind some obscure places as they are not places my family would go to.

If you look at demand worldwide I would assume that North America would have the highest demand in general due to the large number of North Americans member base.

Most of those members are drive to travellers

Tybee Island who many of us have never heard of what if it had a demand of 100 and a supply of 50

Orlando has a demand of 6000 and a supply of 5500
Although in simple math the demand is much higher for Orlando the supply demand ratio in Tybee is higher.

In your book which should have higher trading power? Thus what should be the overriding force supply vs. demand or Demand?

Please take this as a real question and use these numbers as hypotheticals. Please do not turn this into a strawman or changing goal posts etc. I am trying to understand your argument better.

On another note I would expect RCI to revalue those weeks currently valued at 50 and on sale for 11 or this will turn upside down on them quickly

Mr. or Mrs. Carolinian,

I really wanted you to address what you think is more important in supply demand in one case maybe 100 people are fighting for 50 pieces of inventory

in another maybe 10000 people are fighiting for 8000 pieces of inventory what has a greater demand?

Carolinian, you bring up some really interesting points but, I swear you repeat your favorite points so many times that it becomes boring. can we agree to talk about this in a logical manner and not try to destroy anyone that has a different thought than you? By the way I do not own in Orlando and my areas were not affected like the parkway etc. that you mention. My max value is 21 and I am really happy with what I can see especially since I like to travel short notice but, am amazed by the amount of inventory i can see in school vacation time as well.

 

[lolibeachgirl]

I have been an RCI member since 1999, a tug member since 2002, and with the way the RCI searches were before "the Change" in mid Nov. I would do a search for the area I wanted, and my options came up. If there is never any availability for me at a resort, then I most likely would not have heard of it. Of the ones I had the option of exchanging into, I would go through the resort ratings and reviews on TUG, also on RCI, and decided if it was worth it to use my week there.

Previous to the option of an online search, when "the Call" would come offering me a resort that matched my ongoing request, I would do the same thing- Search THAT one resort through Tug ratings and reviews and RCI reviews. Only then I couldn't see if I had any other options and risked not getting any exchange for the place I wanted to go. If a place was never listed, or offered, then of course I'd never heard of it, and if it wasn't an option, why would I do any research on it??

Now, since the big change, I can do an online search, not just for what my deposit qualifies for, but by searching all units that fit the search, and find out what I need to get exactly what I want. Not just the place, but the unit size, and in some cases some resorts that were never an option to me. Not in a phone call, not in a search that my deposit matched in it's "band" if that's how it worked. My options have increased immensely. No more "hope and wait". And I can get change back if I trade down. To me, the pluses outweigh whatever minus' are out there (such as the fee to combine, but they are a business and their goal is to make money).

I now have the control to get exactly what I want from a timeshare exchange. That makes me happy that I didn't buy into Wyndham Points, or buy a timeshare in Hawaii (where I want to go most times) with huge maintenence fees. Which saved me LOTS of money. And if I can't get a place I want because it never comes up in RCI, then I have the choice to exchange with another company, rent my weeks, or buy where I want to stay.

 

[Carolinian]

We can only speculate at those numbers, so it is pointless to discuss what they might be.

What makes sense in looking at supply and demand is what we can indeed see, such as which areas always have loads of availibility and which almost never show up online. The latter are the ones where demand clearly exceeds supply. As to the former, there is another interesting aspect, and that is in those areas with lots of supply, can theoretically lesser weeks trade in? Orlando is a good case in point. Under the old system, it was well known that any blue week out there would easily trade into Orlando, which on the surface was ''red all year'', but the fact that any blue week would trade in much of the year clearly showed that the supply / demand curve of Orlando much of the year matched those of blue weeks generally. Under the new system, it is even more apparent because trading in takes less points lite in many instances than the points lite they gave for the deposit.

Mr. or Mrs. Carolinian,

I really wanted you to address what you think is more important in supply demand in one case maybe 100 people are fighting for 50 pieces of inventory

in another maybe 10000 people are fighiting for 8000 pieces of inventory what has a greater demand?

Carolinian, you bring up some really interesting points but, I swear you repeat your favorite points so many times that it becomes boring. can we agree to talk about this in a logical manner and not try to destroy anyone that has a different thought than you? By the way I do not own in Orlando and my areas were not affected like the parkway etc. that you mention. My max value is 21 and I am really happy with what I can see especially since I like to travel short notice but, am amazed by the amount of inventory i can see in school vacation time as well.

 

[Mel]

The real problem is that the number we can see are only for the resorts/weeks where there is availability. If there is enough demand for nothing to make it into the bank, we don't have any idea what the cost is to trade in.

It only makes sense that anything that make it into the pool that we see online would be discounted, because everything that makes it through the ongoing searches could be considered leftovers. RCI is reducing the prices of those units to entice people to deposit their own units and exchange into what RCI already has in stock - thus rotating the inventory, and hopefully getting deposits of something somebody else wants (and is maybe waiting for with an ongoing search).

If we want to argue about relative supply and demand between resorts and areas, we need to compare the cost to trade in - and we don't have that for many of the places you want to compare. We can't compare the value RCI offers for a deposit, because we don't know the dynamics of the agreements between the resorts and RCI regarding those deposits.

Many mediocre resorts used to offer bonus weeks for deposits of their units - implying that they were offered because RCI coveted those deposits. The reality was that the developer was giving RCI inventory to cover those bonus weeks. When RCI Points came along, I have no doubt those "bonus weeks" were converted to extra points for the owner of those weeks - and unfortunately for RCI, the way the system was designed, to cover for the fact that they were doing this, they had to charge the same inflated fee to trade in at those resorts. Now with the new Weeks system, would it not seem reasonable to think that when an owner at BIS Kitty Hawk or Vacation Village deposits a unit worth 20 credits, the developer deposits a second unit worth another 20 credits, and the RCI member sees 40 credits in his account. On the other side of the equation, when someone else trades in, he pays 20 credits for that same units that appears to have garnered 40 credits as a deposit.

Which number - 20 or 40 - more accurately reflects the demand of those resorts? Which number should be used to compare those resorts to Allen House or something on the French Riviera.

The other thing you don't seem to be considering is that majority of RCI members are from North America, and thus the North American resorts are going to see much greater demand from the membership. Also remember that the profile of the average timeshare owner has changed over that last 20 years. Timeshares are now marketed mostly to families with children - families who will see the most benefit from more space and kitchen facilities. Most North American families with children are not looking to exchange to England or France, because the cost to get their is prohibitive. Even if it is cheaper to fly to England from New York than to South Carolina, you can't get there in a car - and with 3 or 4 children that is how many families travel (not to mention those who don't like to fly, or who now don't want to put up with US Airport security).

 

[miamidan]

We can only speculate at those numbers, so it is pointless to discuss what they might be.

What makes sense in looking at supply and demand is what we can indeed see, such as which areas always have loads of availibility and which almost never show up online. The latter are the ones where demand clearly exceeds supply. As to the former, there is another interesting aspect, and that is in those areas with lots of supply, can theoretically lesser weeks trade in? Orlando is a good case in point. Under the old system, it was well known that any blue week out there would easily trade into Orlando, which on the surface was ''red all year'', but the fact that any blue week would trade in much of the year clearly showed that the supply / demand curve of Orlando much of the year matched those of blue weeks generally. Under the new system, it is even more apparent because trading in takes less points lite in many instances than the points lite they gave for the deposit.

but, your arguments are what is and are not overvalued are dependent on what supply demand is. How can you so strongly advocate that all is wrong when you clearly confirm that all your talk about what is overbuilt and underbuilt is all speculation?

 

[miamidan]

The real problem is that the number we can see are only for the resorts/weeks where there is availability. If there is enough demand for nothing to make it into the bank, we don't have any idea what the cost is to trade in.

It only makes sense that anything that make it into the pool that we see online would be discounted, because everything that makes it through the ongoing searches could be considered leftovers. RCI is reducing the prices of those units to entice people to deposit their own units and exchange into what RCI already has in stock - thus rotating the inventory, and hopefully getting deposits of something somebody else wants (and is maybe waiting for with an ongoing search).

If we want to argue about relative supply and demand between resorts and areas, we need to compare the cost to trade in - and we don't have that for many of the places you want to compare. We can't compare the value RCI offers for a deposit, because we don't know the dynamics of the agreements between the resorts and RCI regarding those deposits.

Many mediocre resorts used to offer bonus weeks for deposits of their units - implying that they were offered because RCI coveted those deposits. The reality was that the developer was giving RCI inventory to cover those bonus weeks. When RCI Points came along, I have no doubt those "bonus weeks" were converted to extra points for the owner of those weeks - and unfortunately for RCI, the way the system was designed, to cover for the fact that they were doing this, they had to charge the same inflated fee to trade in at those resorts. Now with the new Weeks system, would it not seem reasonable to think that when an owner at BIS Kitty Hawk or Vacation Village deposits a unit worth 20 credits, the developer deposits a second unit worth another 20 credits, and the RCI member sees 40 credits in his account. On the other side of the equation, when someone else trades in, he pays 20 credits for that same units that appears to have garnered 40 credits as a deposit.

Which number - 20 or 40 - more accurately reflects the demand of those resorts? Which number should be used to compare those resorts to Allen House or something on the French Riviera.

The other thing you don't seem to be considering is that majority of RCI members are from North America, and thus the North American resorts are going to see much greater demand from the membership. Also remember that the profile of the average timeshare owner has changed over that last 20 years. Timeshares are now marketed mostly to families with children - families who will see the most benefit from more space and kitchen facilities. Most North American families with children are not looking to exchange to England or France, because the cost to get their is prohibitive. Even if it is cheaper to fly to England from New York than to South Carolina, you can't get there in a car - and with 3 or 4 children that is how many families travel (not to mention those who don't like to fly, or who now don't want to put up with US Airport security).

Mel,

With the new what appears to be stricter trading power i would expect more prime inventory to make it into the on-line system as they are not "pre-discounting" or trading within bands

 

[irisheaven]

Deposit Values Don't match

I checked the deposit calculator to see what my week would bank for & then checked it against one currently available for trade.

My week calculated at an 18, but yet if I wanted to exchange it for the same week, same room size, same everything, I would have to give 22 points.

So, I would only get 18 points, but yet would have to pay 22 if I wanted to trade for the same unit. Anyone know why that would be? Why would I get less value than what RCI is charging?

Thanks,
Sarah

 

[bnoble]

Only RCI knows for sure. But, we've seen it work both ways---some deposits get more than they'd require to exchange back into, some less, and some are more or less at par.

 

[bellesgirl]

I checked the deposit calculator to see what my week would bank for & then checked it against one currently available for trade.

My week calculated at an 18, but yet if I wanted to exchange it for the same week, same room size, same everything, I would have to give 22 points.

So, I would only get 18 points, but yet would have to pay 22 if I wanted to trade for the same unit. Anyone know why that would be? Why would I get less value than what RCI is charging?

Thanks,
Sarah

There are many disparities between depositing and acquiring - in both directions. It comes down to supply and demand. If you can see that week sitting in the inventory, then apparently there are no requests for that week. I guess RCI does not necessarily want another one, right now. How far in advance are you banking? The value may go up (or down). None of us really know.

 

[irisheaven]

How far in advance are you banking? The value may go up (or down). None of us really know.

I'm looking at 2012 week 14.