Must Read Post From An Insider on Timeshare Talk!

[lawgs]

thanks for your quick reply cindy

for some reason no matter what i try there, i just get No matches please addjust your criteria and search again

RCI guide did not even know how to do this ( said they are not trained )

oh well maybe tomorrow will be able to search for OLCC for 7500 it will sure beat extra vacation at 494 for a week there

wonder how long before OLCC stops giving the gem weeks to RCI ( considering their new points program values a week 52 as 80000~ rci points in the west village ) hope the OLCC weeks do not dry up into "points weeks"



smilawgs

 

[rickandcindy23]

Lawgs, you should see exactly what I see. You cannot go into Points Reservations, you must go into Weeks reservations within the RCI points system. I just leave the date as 8/6 and search 5 weeks out. Are you looking for Orlando? You should pull 24 different resorts with lots of choices.

 

[Liz Wolf-Spada]

I am not impressed with RCI points, although at some point in time we might look at another point system, which to me makes more sense. I like weeks because they are easy to deal with, a week for a week. Value is relative and no one every pays rack rates on hotels, so that isn't a good comparision either. There is no way to adequately compare on an objective basis a glorious two bedroom resort in a beautiful rural area with a tiny, but well done studio or one bedroom in a city location. Location is a big issue, size, number of bedrooms, if its a place you want to go, what time of year it is, all of this figures into each decision and a great trade for me might sound like a lousy trade to you or vice versa. Going to pay my SA fees and maybe I should look into DAE for them and join II and keep using SFX and cut RCI loose completely as they seem to be abandoning the original premise of timesharing, buy a week, use it or trade for a different week somewhere else.

 

[Carolinian]

Supply, simply, is what it is. Same with demand.

I think you are overlooking the fact that many exchange company requests are for regions rather than specific resorts, and such requests would seem to automatically be factored into demand for all resorts in that region. If an exchange company fails to do this their model is flawed.

Developers sometimes do some stupid things that hurt supply and demand factors, including bulkbanking. Any honest exchange system has to deal with REAL supply and REAL demand, however.

Two comments: First, it is not clear how "supply and demand" is used for resorts in sales. RCI says it considers "supply and demand" for both the inidividual resort and the region where the resort is found. If the former is a substantial factor for new resorts, then every owner of a timeshare in development would be getting slammed in that developers are always turning over unused units to RCI (and SFX and...); thus creating a lot of supply. Thus, owners of units at timeshares that are in sales would always be at a disadvantage. Are you saying this is how supply and demand works... it puts any owner at a new resort at a disadvantage? (Interesting)

Also, don't forget that the rental market has a bearing on how many points RCI assigns to a unit. This is how they pay for Points for Product. (I hope you aren't suggesting that they should not factor in the rental worth of a unit... that would allow RCI to pocket any windfall profits when a rental market is stronger than what timeshares trade for in an area.)

 

[Carolinian]

Again, many requests to RCI are for regions rather than specific resorts, and those would seem to cover ALL resorts in that region, even the new one, so there WOULD be demand for a new resort unless it was in a region that nobody requested (not exactly likely!).

Supply is what it is. If a developer acts in a way that is adverse to its owners, the owners should deal with that developer, not expect the exchange company to ignore the real supply situation.

In the Points Partners situation, RCI is degrading its primary product, timeshare exchanges, by diverting prime inventory to pay for Points Partner products, something that is very secondary. Even worse they are diverting WEEKS inventory to do this and Weeks owners cannot even use the Points Partners. This is a huge fraud by RCI on its Weeks owners, that hopefully the class action lawsuits will clean up. Weeks members, in particular are being cheated by the Points Partner scam, and RCI should be brought to book for it. Is it the American way to cheat one set of customers in order to provide some overpriced fluff for another groups of customers? I don't thnk so!

These secondary ''choices'' that exist from polluting the exchange system with non-timeshare goods and services degrade the choices for the primary product, timeshare shares, by diverting inventory to pay for the secondary choices. Those secondary choices are a huge negative for those members (the other 70%) who are in the system for its primary function, timeshare exchanges. The very existance of Points Partners has been one of my big objections to RCI Points from the time they first rolled it out as GPN. Since many of these Points Partners are Cendant companies, a big part of the reason for Points Partners is to abuse the timeshare exchange system to market other Cendant products. Of course they throw in some others, like air tickets to make it a little less obvious what they are doing.

So your contention is that someone buying a new unit at a new resort (perhaps one that is not even listed in the RCI directory) should be given ZERO trading power (or at least a ZERO for resort popularity in the trading power equation) in that no units for that resort are currently being requested. Furthermore, that when developers deposit their unsold inventory, that this should undermine the trading power of anyone who has bought at the resort. Interesting.

That would sure help spur the resale market in that anyone buying at a new resort would be heavily penalized for owning new (low trading power). It would also spur the independents. I am absolutely positive that they would not impliment this policy.

Apart from your recommendation, what is the actual manner in which RCI treats new resorts with developers depositing unsold units? You often say that the Weeks system is superior in that it is run by supply and demand, but I after reading your message I am confused by what this actually means. Are you saying that they actually give new owners poor trading power because there is currently an oversupply at their resorts? Or, is the manner in which supply and demand works as hidden as the assigment of points? (Please answer.)

Also interesting. While I am not a fan of the points from products offers (never used them) reports are that 30% of the points are used in this fashion. Your position is that if someone wants use part of the value of their timeshare for (lets us say) an airline ticket, a company should legally be prohibited from offering this as an option. Shouldn't customers and companies be free to decide what to buy and sell? (Isn't this America?)

 

[PerryM]

Consumer activism won't get you your dream vacation

Supply and demand are in the eye of the beholder.

The Orlando owner who paid big bucks and has little supply but in huge demand might not be able to get to exchange into an Orlando resort with RCI's Orlando exchange restrictions. This is no problem with RCI's Point system – the secret formulas and hidden restrictions exist no more.

Consumers are better served learning the strengths and weaknesses of the resort and third party companies they might use (the exchange companies). Consumer activism isn’t going to get you that super vacation your family wants, it just makes the lawyers rich.

RCI seems to have decided that the RCI Points system is to pick the bones of the RCI weeks system – as a consumer you must use this fact to your advantage. If Orlando resorts are being given preference equal to Hawaiian resorts then take advantage of it. If RCI Points can get you to places the RCI Weeks folks dream about then you must switch. If your HOA has decided to screw you out of thousands of dollars to convert to RCI Points then find a developer who treats his customers with dignity.

There are very simple solutions to all the problems brought up with RCI Weeks:
1) Use Weeks to get easy upgrades
2) Use Points to take advantage of the Week system
3) If you don’t like 1 & 2 then rent

Easy solutions which take advantage of existing conditions will get you to your dream vacation instead of the inside of a court room with expensive lawyers that you will pay dearly for.

 

[lawgs]

cindy

thank you for your reply

we cannot see anything on any of the searches we are doing....in Weeks from RCI Points Account

VG says it is a internet problem we are experiencing but then how are you getting searches

he suggests the email route NOT!!

will keep trying

 

["Roger"]

Supply, simply, is what it is. Same with demand.

I think you are overlooking the fact that many exchange company requests are for regions rather than specific resorts, and such requests would seem to automatically be factored into demand for all resorts in that region. If an exchange company fails to do this their model is flawed.

Developers sometimes do some stupid things that hurt supply and demand factors, including bulkbanking. Any honest exchange system has to deal with REAL supply and REAL demand, however.

I am afraid that I am still puzzled by the mysteries of "supply and demand" -- at least as it applies to timeshares.

RCI lists "supply and demand" for the individual resort and "supply and demand" for resorts in the region as separate factors affecting one's trading power.

Can a resort have no individual demand? How much does that affect the trading power at that resort? (How much weight is put on individual demand versus regional demand?)

With regard to regional demand, if there are ten resorts in an area (three GC's; three SC's; two non rated on the beach; and two non rated away from the beach), and lots of people put in requests for "the region", how does an "honest" exchange company divide up the demand factor? Is it divied up by the number of units that every place provided (so that the mega developer gets the lion's share of the demand factor)? Does the non-rated motel conversion that no one wants get credit?

Suppose a developer spaces out his or her deposits (no bulk spacebank). Still, there is a lot of supply for that resort. I've asked this already, but would an "honest" exchange company penalize an owner of a new resort because there is a lot of supply for that resort? What does RCI do? (Are they an "honest" exchange system -- I am talking about their Weeks system.)

Finally (actually I am sure that there are lots of other questions when you begin to explore the issues), suppose mega-developer does a mega bulk spacebank. We know that the trading power for that resort takes a dip. Since RCI's stated policy is that they consider "supply and demand" for a region (and I have been accused of overlooking this), does that mean every owner in the whole region takes a hit for oversupply?

The bottom line is that "supply and demand" is an utter mystery. The best solution is published values. Then every owner can make informed decisions as to what to do in their own case. Short of that, we don't know what an "honest" exchange company does, nor, whether any given exchange company merits that label.

 

[timeos2]

Time share owners that trade weeks mushrooms of commerce

It is a total fallacy to say that secret valuation and ever changing, but secret, supply and demand values benefit the owners of timeshares. It is never a benefit to anyone but those that control the system to have unknown factors. That so many for so long have accepted being in the dark about values that they try to utilize for good trades shows just how uninformed even the slickest of timeshare users tend to be. Some are sharp in recognizing where the flaws are - that group tends to frequent this type of timeshare group - but most are in the dark when they buy, when they trade and when they sell or give up. But even those that manage to extract decent trades are doing so blind and if things changed tomorrow by edict of the exchange company they use they wouldn't have a clue until they failed to get what they expected. I cannot think of any other market place that people would accept being uninformed not only as the norm but an part of the process.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I loved your last sentence, John. Well said.

 

[Carolinian]

Re: Consumer activism won't get you your dream vacation

I don't think any ecomomist would agree with you that ''supply and demand are in the eye of the beholder''.

There is a big problem with RCI's Point System - that numbers racket in thoroughly corrupt in number assignment. While RCI panders to developers still in sales, they are simultaneously giving a sinister double meaning to the term ''sold out resort''.

You have it backwards on Orlando. Don't you remember Bootleg's posts? Orlando has a huge oversupply, not ''little supply''.

Yes, consumers can take on big companies and win when big companies try to change their policies to hose consumers. The self-styled ''cockroaches'' caused US Airways to reverse a package of consumer unfriendly ff changes in a matter of weeks. The www.saveskymiles.com campaign at Delta took a couple of years, but also caused Delta to reverse consumer unfriendly ff changes.

The best way to tackle the rape of the Weeks program by RCI is not with the class action suits, but with state AG consumer protection actions, which do NOT involve big lawyer fees. The state AG has consumer protection lawyers on salary on their staffs.

When timesharing requires changing what you own regularly to avoid being on the receiving end of whoever RCI is hosing at the time, then it makes it too burdensome for many to bother with timesharing. That is a further problem, not a solution.

Supply and demand are in the eye of the beholder.

The Orlando owner who paid big bucks and has little supply but in huge demand might not be able to get to exchange into an Orlando resort with RCI's Orlando exchange restrictions. This is no problem with RCI's Point system – the secret formulas and hidden restrictions exist no more.

Consumers are better served learning the strengths and weaknesses of the resort and third party companies they might use (the exchange companies). Consumer activism isn’t going to get you that super vacation your family wants, it just makes the lawyers rich.

RCI seems to have decided that the RCI Points system is to pick the bones of the RCI weeks system – as a consumer you must use this fact to your advantage. If Orlando resorts are being given preference equal to Hawaiian resorts then take advantage of it. If RCI Points can get you to places the RCI Weeks folks dream about then you must switch. If your HOA has decided to screw you out of thousands of dollars to convert to RCI Points then find a developer who treats his customers with dignity.

There are very simple solutions to all the problems brought up with RCI Weeks:
1) Use Weeks to get easy upgrades
2) Use Points to take advantage of the Week system
3) If you don’t like 1 & 2 then rent

Easy solutions which take advantage of existing conditions will get you to your dream vacation instead of the inside of a court room with expensive lawyers that you will pay dearly for.

 

[Carolinian]

The bottom line is that "supply and demand" is an utter mystery. The best solution is published values. Then every owner can make informed decisions as to what to do in their own case. Short of that, we don't know what an "honest" exchange company does, nor, whether any given exchange company merits that label.

THere are two major problems with published values.

1) if they are published by a paper and ink system, space limitations require overaveraging that means some rather dissimilar weeks are given the same value, as happens in RCI Points too often, and further they are frozen for long periods and unable to rise and fall with everchanging supply and demand factors. They smack of the same priciniples of currency pegs, wage and price controls or rent controls rather than being market oriented.

2) if the result is published but not the formula and data to work the formula to arrive at those numbers, you have the worst of all worlds, a system that gives both the motive and opportunity to developers to politick the exchange company to rig the number and inflate their values. A non-published system, on the other hand gives no motive, as their is no benefit to rigging a number that will not be known. A system with both formula and result published gives no opportunity, since the formula is out in the open for anyone to work.

All current points systems use the paper and ink publication method and do NOT publish the formula for their numbers. They are a cure that is worse than the disease.

A non-publlished system will be honest as long as there is no conflict of interest for the exchange company running it. As long as they have their hand in the till, they are likely to also have their thumb on the scales. That is the big reason that there is a crying need to end the massive conflict of interest of exchange company rentals from exchange deposits to the general public.

 

[Carolinian]

Re: Time share owners that trade weeks mushrooms of commerce

The worst system of all is the partially transparent system, where they publish values but not the method of arriving at them, in detail, with all of the supporting data. That describes all present points system.

An honest and market-oriented points system would have to be dynamic, frequently adjusting for changes in supply and demand, fully transparent (including full details of the formula and data to establish values), and detailed (where every week would be valued individually instead of overaveraging). All of this would require an electronic format.

It amazes me that some points advocates seem fully satisfied with only half of the information public.

It is a total fallacy to say that secret valuation and ever changing, but secret, supply and demand values benefit the owners of timeshares. It is never a benefit to anyone but those that control the system to have unknown factors. That so many for so long have accepted being in the dark about values that they try to utilize for good trades shows just how uninformed even the slickest of timeshare users tend to be. Some are sharp in recognizing where the flaws are - that group tends to frequent this type of timeshare group - but most are in the dark when they buy, when they trade and when they sell or give up. But even those that manage to extract decent trades are doing so blind and if things changed tomorrow by edict of the exchange company they use they wouldn't have a clue until they failed to get what they expected. I cannot think of any other market place that people would accept being uninformed not only as the norm but an part of the process.

 

[timeos2]

1/2 secret is still better than 100%

It amazes me that some points advocates seem fully satisfied with only half of the information public.

Even if it is half, which I do not agree with, that would be half more than the older systems offer. Prior to and during ownership the buyer can look up what he is purchasing, what it is worth and what it costs. If those values don't meet his/her needs they can walk away or sell if it changes later. Under the other systems the buyer doesn't know the cost (if they did would anyone buy retail?) or the value. Most assume (incorrectly) that buying a week that costs more means it's worth more when in fact the exact opposite may be true. The cheap CA coastal week studio may trade much better than the expensive 2 bedroom Las Vegas week they just bought. Secret system helped that buyer? Wouldn't they have been better served if they could open a book and know that the $3k CA week is worth 76.000 points and the $30,000 2 bedroom only 54,000? Even if they aren't aware of how those numbers were obtained they know what the two weeks are worth and the better value becomes obvious. The values are kept secret to favor the developers (the very claim you try to assign to points) and, because of the non-disclosure, the buyers often get a really bad deal. Now there is a class action worth fighting but I don't see any swell of support for that. Because at least 80% of the owners don't even know they are being had. Secret is not a benefit no matter how it is spun.

 

["Roger"]

Re: Time share owners that trade weeks mushrooms of commerce

The worst system of all is the partially transparent system, where they publish values but not the method of arriving at them, in detail, with all of the supporting data. That describes all present points system.

An honest and market-oriented points system would have to be dynamic, frequently adjusting for changes in supply and demand, fully transparent (including full details of the formula and data to establish values), and detailed (where every week would be valued individually instead of overaveraging). All of this would require an electronic format.

It amazes me that some points advocates seem fully satisfied with only half of the information public.

There are some serious questions in my prior post which would have an enormous effect on what happens to owners. No answers?

From what I gather, you would prefer a fully hidden system as long as someone says that they are using "supply and demand" even if you don't know how they do it or even if they do do it. No wonder we disagree so much.

 

[PerryM]

Clarification

Carolinian,

Let me give an example of what I was getting at:

Orlando is a glut of timeshares throughout the year. However, for a family who’s schedule for all family members means that they can ONLY travel on a specific week and because of a family reunion ONLY one Orlando timeshare is suitable – that family could easily face a non-existent supply for their demand. Hence, in their eyes, there is a shortage of Orlando units for their needs.

Since I’ve not seen RCI executives doing the “Perp walk”, I’m assuming no Attorney General has found it politically expedient to arrest RCI executives for violating a single solitary law. The simple fact is RCI is innocent of all the innuendoes presented here daily – show me a mug shot of a single RCI employee charged with a crime! Enough time has passed for something to have happened.

Just about every night I say to myself “I defended RCI again today, and I don’t even like the company”, I keep scratching my head. I just don’t want timeshare neophytes avoiding pillaging those poor RCI Week owners – It’s a time honored tradition here on TUG; one, I’m sure, my Norse ancestors would be proud of.

 

[Carolinian]

Re: Clarification

Of course they won't be doing the ''perp walk'' in a consumer protection lawsuit by a state AG. THose actions are in civil court not criminal court. An injunction to halt anti-consumer activities is more the result that would occur.

I have pointed that out several times before. Civil court does not send people to jail, but it does help clean up unsavory practices.

Carolinian,


Since I’ve not seen RCI executives doing the “Perp walk”, I’m assuming no Attorney General has found it politically expedient to arrest RCI executives for violating a single solitary law. The simple fact is RCI is innocent of all the innuendoes presented here daily – show me a mug shot of a single RCI employee charged with a crime! Enough time has passed for something to have happened.

Just about every night I say to myself “I defended RCI again today, and I don’t even like the company”, I keep scratching my head. I just don’t want timeshare neophytes avoiding pillaging those poor RCI Week owners – It’s a time honored tradition here on TUG; one, I’m sure, my Norse ancestors would be proud of.

 

[Carolinian]

Re: 1/2 secret is still better than 100%

In this case, either a whole loaf or no loaf creates a climate for an honest system, but half a loaf is a recipe for corruption.

Also a point value does not tell you what a week is ''worth'' only an arbitrary and often corrupt figure that may, as often as not, be misleading. If someone thought a mid August week 33 at the beach had the same value as a late October week 43 just because their RCI Points number is the same, they would be badly misled, as the week 33 is worth substantially more on both the resale and rental market, as well as in exchange trading power in an honest system. Similarly, someone may think a week 43 is ''worth'' a lot more than a week 44 because of their RCI Points numbers, when in fact there is really not much difference if any.

And BTW, points systems ARE the older system. The very first timeshare - Hapimag back in 1963 - was and is a points system. The weeks system is a newer improvement devised by a French developer.

Even if it is half, which I do not agree with, that would be half more than the older systems offer. Prior to and during ownership the buyer can look up what he is purchasing, what it is worth and what it costs. If those values don't meet his/her needs they can walk away or sell if it changes later. Under the other systems the buyer doesn't know the cost (if they did would anyone buy retail?) or the value. Most assume (incorrectly) that buying a week that costs more means it's worth more when in fact the exact opposite may be true. The cheap CA coastal week studio may trade much better than the expensive 2 bedroom Las Vegas week they just bought. Secret system helped that buyer? Wouldn't they have been better served if they could open a book and know that the $3k CA week is worth 76.000 points and the $30,000 2 bedroom only 54,000? Even if they aren't aware of how those numbers were obtained they know what the two weeks are worth and the better value becomes obvious. The values are kept secret to favor the developers (the very claim you try to assign to points) and, because of the non-disclosure, the buyers often get a really bad deal. Now there is a class action worth fighting but I don't see any swell of support for that. Because at least 80% of the owners don't even know they are being had. Secret is not a benefit no matter how it is spun.

 

[Carolinian]

Roger -

Let look at the regional and individual demand factors from a common sense perspective.

Lets say 40 exchangers asked for anything on the Outer Banks.
60 ask for oceanfront outer banks
10 ask for Gold Crown Outer Banks
5 ask for any resort in Nags Head (all of which are ocean front, and no GC)
15 ask specifically for resort A, (GC oceanfront in Kill Devil Hills)
10 ask specifically for resort B oceanfront non-GC in Duck

resort A has demand of 125
resort B has demand of 110
the resorts in Nags Head have a demand of 105 each
the non-oceanfront GC has a demand of 50
the other non-oceanfront resort has a demand of 40
the other oceanfront resorts have a demand of 100

This illustrates that it is not difficult to get the demand figures for a new resort, by apportioning the various categories.

Total regional demand would tend to be an average of the resorts in the region. It would be necessary to reduce it to an average to be able to compare regions, as otherwise the comparision would be skewed by the number of resorts in each and therefore not be useful.

 

[timeos2]

Re: 1/2 secret is still better than 100%

In this case, either a whole loaf or no loaf creates a climate for an honest system, but half a loaf is a recipe for corruption.

Also a point value does not tell you what a week is ''worth'' only an arbitrary and often corrupt figure that may, as often as not, be misleading. If someone thought a mid August week 33 at the beach had the same value as a late October week 43 just because their RCI Points number is the same, they would be badly misled, as the week 33 is worth substantially more on both the resale and rental market, as well as in exchange trading power in an honest system. Similarly, someone may think a week 43 is ''worth'' a lot more than a week 44 because of their RCI Points numbers, when in fact there is really not much difference if any.

Ahh but it IS worth the same to that buyer. They are going to get the values stated. It's the poor sucker weeks buyer that figures buying the third week in September isn't very far from that great week in August that gets ripped off. There is nothing out there to tell him any different. In points the high value of the June - July - August use periods are blended with the lesser May - September-October times and everyone benefits. No more one group of owners that hold the cards and all others who get less because they happened to buy later in the process. You have 15-20 owners happy with their time and willing to pay the fees rather than the 10 weeks in the summer and all the rest dogs. The syetem, which the buyer can see, sets the values and the buyer decides if they agree or not by buying and using it. The promise of buy here -travel anywhere is a much bigger lie than the averaging of values over a set period rather than specific assignments to a few top weeks. I like the idea that more people get an average value than a few with top and the rest with 1/2 or less. You don't have to agree but that does mean the system is "corrupt". We see the values going in. The corrupt one is the secret or "newer" version if you prefer. I guess I'll take the original, older and more proven points based way. Back to the future.

 

[Carolinian]

Re: 1/2 secret is still better than 100%

''Everyone'' does not benefit in this overaveraging or ''blending''. The week 43 owner makes out like a bandit because his week is overvalued, and the week 33 owner is royally ripped off because his week is substantially undervalued.
A week 33 owner would be a fool to participate in this screwball points system, but a week 43 owner would be doing himself a big favor.

What is important here is the flexibility of the exchange mechanism, and Weeks has it all over Points in this regard. The key factor is not whether the valuations are published or non-published but whether they are kept electronically or maintained in a paper and ink system. Weeks valuations are kept electronaically, which is flexible enough to allow valuation of each individual week, while Points uses paper and ink, with its space limitations that force the use of overaveraging. I much prefer the flexibility of an exchange valuation system that keeps track of its values in the far more versitile electronic format, and that more flexible system is none other than Weeks.

Ahh but it IS worth the same to that buyer. They are going to get the values stated. It's the poor sucker weeks buyer that figures buying the third week in September isn't very far from that great week in August that gets ripped off. There is nothing out there to tell him any different. In points the high value of the June - July - August use periods are blended with the lesser May - September-October times and everyone benefits. No more one group of owners that hold the cards and all others who get less because they happened to buy later in the process. You have 15-20 owners happy with their time and willing to pay the fees rather than the 10 weeks in the summer and all the rest dogs. The syetem, which the buyer can see, sets the values and the buyer decides if they agree or not by buying and using it. The promise of buy here -travel anywhere is a much bigger lie than the averaging of values over a set period rather than specific assignments to a few top weeks. I like the idea that more people get an average value than a few with top and the rest with 1/2 or less. You don't have to agree but that does mean the system is "corrupt". We see the values going in. The corrupt one is the secret or "newer" version if you prefer. I guess I'll take the original, older and more proven points based way. Back to the future.

 

["Roger"]

Re: 1/2 secret is still better than 100%

In this case, either a whole loaf or no loaf creates a climate for an honest system, but half a loaf is a recipe for corruption.

...

Perhaps an illustration would help here.

We (as consumers) know what Walmart charges for a product. We do not know how they set the prices (although their prices are subject to supply and demand). What we have here is the recipe for corruption. (Shame on Walmart!)

What would be better? Apparently a system in which prices are published on an electronic board so the consumer can stand in front of the DVD she intends to buy and watch the prices go up and down. Furthermore, she needs full transparency as to what is causing the prices to fluctuate. (I am not sure what this transparency is... the fact that someone in Hoboken just bought two DVD's causing the supply to go down and the price to go up? --news that a truckload of DVD's are about to arrive on the loading dock -- a "bulk spacebank" -- so prices need to plunge because of a sudden "oversupply"?)

Well, that would be difficult. So, rather than the half a loaf which breeds corruption (again, shame on Walmart), what we need is a store with no prices published at all (no loaf at all). You chose an item, come to the counter, and are told whether you could afford it (or not), but not how much it actually cost. Walmart takes your money (a single unit - week for week - no change) and you leave.

Bravo, Cindy! You were given information as to how many points it would take to go Orlando, and, information in hand, decided that this was not a good value for spending your points. I think everyone should be given opportunities to decide whether the price of something is worth it for them to spend their money. I don't think the fact that Walmart offers us this half a loaf is a bad thing.

 

["Roger"]

Roger -

Let look at the regional and individual demand factors from a common sense perspective.

Lets say 40 exchangers asked for anything on the Outer Banks.
60 ask for oceanfront outer banks
10 ask for Gold Crown Outer Banks....

You obviously have far better knowledge of the resorts at OBX than I do, so it is kind of hard to follow your example. I do have a few questions...

If the new Nags Head megaresort has 50 unsold units deposited plus 10 units from new owners and the forty year old motel conversion has 2 units available, they would both be given the same amount of credit for a request for a Nags Head resort. That is the indivdual "demand" according to your system.

Now, the "supply" of the megaresort is high, but the "supply" of the motel unit is low. So, if I understand your system correctly, someone owning at the motel is given great "individual" supply and demand (RCI lists "individual" supply and demand as a factor in calculating trading power), but an owner of one of the new units at the megaresort is punished for owning at the new complex. These owners are given low trading power.

Quite honestly, I don't think that this is how RCI would calculate supply and demand for the new Nags Head resort. The truth of the matter is that none of us (that includes both of us) know how they calculate supply and demand any more than we know how Walmart decides how much to charge for an individual item (see previous post). The big difference is that Walmart lets us see their prices and decide if a purchase is worth our money. I am glad that RCI is at last taking a few steps toward reform and at least allowing its points owners to see prices also.

I had to laugh at one of Perry's comments. I can't say that RCI is one of my favorite companies either and yet I keep having to posting in their favor. I just hate to see them criticized for taking at least a few steps toward reform within the timesharing industry. Nothing, nothing has caused more consumer headaches than allowing timeshare sales staff to misrepresent the value of their product because they can say "red for red" or " we have some of the highest demand in the country." Let the consumer see actual numbers of what their unit will trade for. Hurrah!

 

[BocaBum99]

I'd have to agree with Roger. One of the biggest lies in timesharing is the representation that the timeshare salesman makes on the topic of exchanging. They try to make it simple and so they tell a series of half truths and outright lies about what can be done vs. what can't.

By not sharing trading power values and availability metrics, the exchange company is contributing to this series of misrepresentations by the developer's sales team.

Carolinian keeps arguing that sharing the numbers forces developers to lobby the exchange company for better point values for its resort. The other side of this argument which he does not share is that NOT sharing it enables the same resort developers to make bold face lies about how easy it is to exchange with the unit they are selling.

I claim that this set of lies is far worse for the industry than published values for points that don't change frequently.

 

[PerryM]

RCI and the kid games

Pin the tail on the donkey reminds me of RCI and II exchanges (Week based).

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin_the_tail_on_the_donkey

I deposit my week, RCI blindfolds me, spins me around and I get an exchange while dizzy and blindfolded.

If this is an example of 21st century commerce what’s next on the horizon?

The simple fact is that NO ONE, not an RCI whistleblower, NO ONE, knows exactly how RCI works internally. If it’s anything like II (Which I study on a daily basis) there is only one rule (The PRIME rule) that seems to always work:

RCI and II gets exchanges which makes their stockholders very happy.

Beyond that, I’ve reversed engineered how II works internally and it’s a jumbled mess of semi permanent, vacillating rules and filled with human mistakes. I’m assuming RCI is just as bad.

Anyone claiming that supply and demand makes RCI work can’t back that claim up with any published rules – just vague references by RCI how the system worked sometime in the past.

Take advantage of the Prime Rule – RCI will do everything in its power to make two disjointed deposits come together in a lopsided exchange. There are hundreds of these lopsided exchanges reported here over the years. The trick, of course, is to be on the right side of the exchange.