Just the Facts, Ma'am

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

Disclosure of Weeks Program Activity for 2009

In 2009 RCI added 585,588 units of inventory to the Weeks exchange system that were in excess of Week member deposits, and used 247,844 Weeks member deposits for rental and other purposes.

There were 1,960,621 total units of inventory deposited more than sixty (60) days in advance of the starting date of the deposited Vacation Time. There were 1,375,033 deposited by Weeks members with the following breakdown by Trading Power Segment: 457,831 High, 463,680 Medium, and 453,522 Low. There were 585,588 deposits by RCI or others in excess of Weeks member deposits with the following breakdown by Trading Power Segment: 196,213 High, 188,244 Medium, and 201,131 Low.

There were 741,588 total Exchanges in the RCI Weeks Exchange Program completed more than sixty (60) days in advance of the starting date of the deposited Vacation Time. There were 597,035 Exchanges completed using Member deposited inventory with the following breakdown by Trading Power Segment: 269,464 High, 221,701 Medium, and 105,870 Low. There were 144,553 Exchanges completed using inventory deposited by RCI or others in excess of Weeks member deposits with the following breakdown by Trading Power Segment: 64,392 High, 54,264 Medium, and 25,879 Low.

There were 620,179 units of inventory not subject to Exchange or used for any purpose. This includes inventory deposited within sixty (60) days of the starting date of the Vacation Time. The breakdown of this inventory by Trading Power Segment is as follows: 102,341 High, 153,439 Medium, and 364,399 Low.

There were 247,844 units of inventory that were deposited by members and rented or used for other purposes by RCI more than sixty (60) days in advance of the starting date of the deposited Vacation Time. The breakdown of this inventory by Trading Power Segment is as follows: 93,504 High, 84,090 Medium, and 70,250 Low.

RCI - the largest timeshare vacation exchange network in the world. Timeshare exchange, community, ratings and reviews, and destinations.

[Jya-Ning Silver Contributor Find all posts View Profile Close Jya-Ning]

I guess most of their members will not find that fact(s) easily. Still very interesting fact

Jya-Ning

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

What you have is a big part of the explanation as to why RCI Points Lite requires more points lite to trade into some weeks than they give for deposits but requires fewer points lite than it gives for deposits on others. The Points Lite numbers racket is an attempt to set up a defense for a new lawsuit over RCI's rentals to the general public.

What you found is also RCI's related PR move to try to slide their rental scam past their own members.

One tip off is the comment of the federal judge during the hearing over whether to approve the ''settlement'' of the class action lawsuit that since the only substantive relief, the time limited requirement that RCI offer any deposit made over a year from start date for exchange first before they put it into their rental pool, would expire and when it did there was nothing to stop someone else filing the identical lawsuit. RCI's lawyers are skewing the exchange system to try to cover up for the rentals in anticipation of such a new lawsuit.

Here's how it works. RCI overpoints areas where it gets a lot of extra inventory, especially developer deposits. Those are what it wants to put in for the good inventory it takes out for rentals. It overprices what it is bringing to the table (which also gives a windfall to members depositing similar weeks) and underprices the hard to find weeks it is taking out. It ''balances'' the values based on the numbers for deposits for both, which is what are skewed. Since they have to deal with reality on pricing on the other side, what it takes to make a trade, the numbers out are the real values set by the market. And if a member happens to own what RCI wants to take out for rental, they get the shaft too on artificially depressed deposit values.

If you were looking at it simply on an exchange basis, giving the same or more value to dime-a-dozen always availible weeks compared to scarce-as-hens-teeth weeks which virtually always get snatched immediately by ongoing searches and never make the exchange pool, is simply nuts. But that is not RCI's agenda here. Its agenda is protecting and covering for its rental program.

Given RCI's screwy points lite numbers, comparing weeks out and weeks in to the rental program by points lite numbers is a meaningless red herring, when one may be an overpointed Vacation Village at Parkway week and the other a rare St. John winter week or a London week anytime or something like that. The only meaningful comparision would be using categories where comparable weeks were compared with each other, like number of summer east coast beach weeks in compared to east coast beach weeks out, or Orlando weeks in compared to Olando weeks out, SW Florida weeks in compared to SW Florida weeks out, etc.

Of course, if there is another lawsuit, the attorneys need to go straight for the jugular and do very detailed discovery on how RCI sets its points lite numbers. I suspect that will bring RCI's little house of cards tumbling down.

One other interesting thing that is directly related to protecting RCI's rental opeationis and the ''settlement'' order is the way they have in Points Lite reduced the time period prior to start date to get maximum points. Before Points Lite, you had to deposit over a year out to get maximum trading power and many paid m/f's early just for that purpose. But the ''settlement'' required RCI to hold any week for exchange purposes for a set time before they put it into their rental pool. They obviiously would rather be able to put high value weeks directly into the rental pool as they have been doing. So in Points Lite they reduced the time period to get maximum trading power to significantly UNDER one year. They figure that with human nature many people are not going to go to the trouble to pay m/f's that much earlier to get over the one year mark, go they are now free on any such weeks to evade the only substantive part of the ''settlement'' and put those weeks directly into the rental pool.

If you are looking for the explanation of anything RCI does these days, it is real simple. It is all about the rentals.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

As my stepsister used to say to me, "Could you say it shorter?"



I obliged her . . . . have not said anything at all to her in three or four years.

[ace2000 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close ace2000]

If you are looking for the explanation of anything RCI does these days, it is real simple. It is all about the rentals.

I'll grant that... but, if you look closely - It's all about a greedy corporation that has to continue make more profits to please it's shareholders. And a corporation can't just make the same earnings to keep everyone happy... it has to find ways to make MORE earnings.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

I'll grant that... but, if you look closely - It's all about a greedy corporation that has to continue make more profits to please it's shareholders. And a corporation can't just make the same earnings to keep everyone happy... it has to find ways to make MORE earnings.

The real problem is that RCI, like many corporations, acts in ways to goose the short term bottom line without regard as to how their actions my negatively impact their longer term bottom line. That may get them a bonus this year and make shareholders who don't look too deeply happy, but it will bite them in the ass in the long run.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

Some thoughts.

Given that these are thee figures they admit to . . .

The amount of rental business is significant:

247,844 Weeks member deposits for rental and other purposes.

Deposits other than from members is significant:

There were 585,588 deposits by RCI or others in excess of Weeks member deposits

What the hay is this . . . late deposits? . . . What does not used for any purpose mean? That's a big number to be so vague.

There were 620,179 units of inventory not subject to Exchange or used for any purpose

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

COMBINED STATEMENT OF KEY OPERATING STATISTICS
FOR THE RCI WEEKS EXCHANGE PROGRAM
AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,2010

Number of timeshare properties, accommodations or other facilities
eligible to participate in the hogram (Note 6)
Resorts with current affiliation agreements 4,017
Resorts available for exchange although the contractual relationship between the resort and the Company has terminated 94
Total eligible properties 4,111

Number of fully paid subscribing members as of year-end 2,352,105

Number of deposits for which the Company has an obligation as to this
Program as ofyear-end to provide an exchange opportunity in a
subsequent period to a subscribing member who has reline
or more deposits 1,457,114

Number of exchanges confirmed during the year 1,211,892

Exchange requests fulfilled as a percentage of properly submitted
exchange requests, including exchange alternatives that were offered
by the Company as to this Program and subsequently accepted
by subscribing members 91.7%

[tonyg Goomba & Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close tonyg]

RCI exchange history/ II exchange history:

2005: 2,625,867 / 887,000
2004: 2,608,399 / 858,000
2003: 2,619,106 / 790,000
2002: 2,483,299 / 719,000
2001: 1,800,000 / 669,000
2000: 2,101,189 / 634,217
1999: 2,052,760 / 581,648
1998: 1,874,336 / 540,000

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

RCI exchange history/ II exchange history:

2005: 2,625,867 / 887,000
2004: 2,608,399 / 858,000
2003: 2,619,106 / 790,000
2002: 2,483,299 / 719,000
2001: 1,800,000 / 669,000
2000: 2,101,189 / 634,217
1999: 2,052,760 / 581,648
1998: 1,874,336 / 540,000

It's more interesting from 2005 til now . . . in another thread.


http://www.timeshareforums.com/forum...ntitled-3.html