Must Read Post From An Insider on Timeshare Talk!

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

I agree with BoardGirl. This would be a monumental task and would cause an outright rebellion among many RCI members who might think their timeshare week is valued at much more than RCI does. I just can't see RCI doing something this extreme across the board to enhance their points program.

RCI is under assault. Orange Lake just launched its own internal exchange program. VRI just bought ORE/MROP and appears to be planning its own internal exchange program. Pahio was just bought out by Fairfield. This trend will continue and resort groups will make 3rd party exchange less and less important.

So, it's not a matter of whether or not they will be able to pull off a monumental task. They will have to try something other than just raising prices to make up for profit shortages. I am quite sure they will fail in execution for reasons I stated above. But, they do have cash that can be used to buy something that exists. By the time I have it ready, they will need it more than ever and want to have it badly.

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

This poster seems to have vanished from TS Talk. He had listed what might have been a real name (now changed to ''John Smith'') and RCI as his employer (now changed to ''unemployed'') on his site registration which was availible online. I wonder if RCI got onto him?

In any event, the program described would certainly warrant RCI changing its name to ''Rental Condominiums International''. It seems headed in that direction, anyway!

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

Making it public is what gives the developers an incentive to collude with the exchange company to come up with screwy values that are skewed in their favor. The ONLY way to keep a system of published values honest is to have complete transparency in the method and process of setting those numbers, with all parts of that process completely out in the open. Otherwise, one ends up with the corrupt numbers like RCI Points.

As I have said before, I have no problem with published numbers as long as the values are dynamic, each week is valued on its own without the overaveraging that exists in all points systems, and the process of establishing numbers is completely out in the open. Published numbers with a hidden method of setting them is the worst possible combination in timesharing.

Interval International sets its trading power values in a way that is rigged and placates its developer community. I determined this by speaking to an II inside who knows how trading power is established. II does NOT publish its trading power formulae. Therefore, I can only conclude that it isn't the publishing of numbers that forces exchange companies to bias their trading power formulas. My believe is that trading power is rigged because exchange companies want deposits from developers. As long as exchange companies want deposits, trading power formulae will be rigged.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

This poster seems to have vanished from TS Talk. He had listed what might have been a real name (now changed to ''John Smith'') and RCI as his employer (now changed to ''unemployed'') on his site registration which was availible online. I wonder if RCI got onto him?

In any event, the program described would certainly warrant RCI changing its name to ''Rental Condominiums International''. It seems headed in that direction, anyway!

I think this was your most insightful prediction ever.

[timeos2 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close timeos2]

Face of exchange now equals minisystems

RCI is under assault. Orange Lake just launched its own internal exchange program. VRI just bought ORE/MROP and appears to be planning its own internal exchange program. Pahio was just bought out by Fairfield. This trend will continue and resort groups will make 3rd party exchange less and less important.

So, it's not a matter of whether or not they will be able to pull off a monumental task. They will have to try something other than just raising prices to make up for profit shortages. I am quite sure they will fail in execution for reasons I stated above. But, they do have cash that can be used to buy something that exists. By the time I have it ready, they will need it more than ever and want to have it badly.

I had just posted elsewhere the fact that the life of high volume third party exchange systems is getting short. What was once a given - to trade to something other than what you own you used RCI or II - is no longer true. For those who are willing to do the leg work it's direct trades, rentals or independents. But that isn't 2% of timeshare owners. The majority are being woo'd by the big mini-systems which Fairfield and others have proven to be workable. The pitch that you don't have to join RCI or II and place and hope your time is seductive. I see perhaps a 1/2 dozen successful minis as this shakes out which will effectively handle what used to be the RCI/II bread and butter exchanges. What needs to be in place is a transfer mechanism between those very large minis. It may be a revamped RCI using points or rentals or it may be agreements between the groups themselves. What it won't be is a continuation of the old, week for week systems as they are not flexible enough to handle the expectations of todays timeshare owner. RCI has seen the light but hasn't figured out a plan yet. At least they are trying. Once Marriott and a few others abandon II in favor of direct internal systems II may be a goner. The small independents can get by for a while as expectations aren't big for them but no one is ever likely to be the volume kings that RCI/II have enjoyed up to now going forward. That is quickly moving to the minis.

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

Minis are FAR too limited in what they have to offer. Sunterra is probably the broadest in its offerings, but it too is quite limited, and will be more so if it has to cough up its European operation to someone like Club La Costa as a result of the current scandal or is even broken up completely.

Points based mini-systems have been around forever. The very first timeshare was developed by Hapimag, a Swiss company, and was and still is a points-based mini-system. Points based mini-systems are not anything new.

Almost all of the resorts I have traded into have been independent resorts, and I have a hard time coming up with any mini-system resorts that I have even put in a request for. I would never want to limit myself to the very limited portfolios of ANY mini-system.

One resort I owned at did become part of an overseas mini-system, but I would have sold that week at that resort anyway. The mini-system did not make it any more attractive.

In many of the mini-systems, it is the developer, not the members who is in control, and this is something I avoid in timesharing like the plague. This is a huge negative for many of them.

Maybe the minis should just take a hike and the independent member-run resorts can regroup with our own exchange company, and have a lot more diversity in exchange.

I had just posted elsewhere the fact that the life of high volume third party exchange systems is getting short. What was once a given - to trade to something other than what you own you used RCI or II - is no longer true. For those who are willing to do the leg work it's direct trades, rentals or independents. But that isn't 2% of timeshare owners. The majority are being woo'd by the big mini-systems which Fairfield and others have proven to be workable. The pitch that you don't have to join RCI or II and place and hope your time is seductive. I see perhaps a 1/2 dozen successful minis as this shakes out which will effectively handle what used to be the RCI/II bread and butter exchanges. What needs to be in place is a transfer mechanism between those very large minis. It may be a revamped RCI using points or rentals or it may be agreements between the groups themselves. What it won't be is a continuation of the old, week for week systems as they are not flexible enough to handle the expectations of todays timeshare owner. RCI has seen the light but hasn't figured out a plan yet. At least they are trying. Once Marriott and a few others abandon II in favor of direct internal systems II may be a goner. The small independents can get by for a while as expectations aren't big for them but no one is ever likely to be the volume kings that RCI/II have enjoyed up to now going forward. That is quickly moving to the minis.

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

Who are you?

Why are you posting as some other person? You have no right to steal someone's identity, even if it is just a message board.

Your name is Jim? How ironic.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

Minis are FAR too limited in what they have to offer. Sunterra is probably the broadest in its offerings, but it too is quite limited, and will be more so if it has to cough up its European operation to someone like Club La Costa as a result of the current scandal or is even broken up completely.

Steve -

You've made that comment several times and, as I've posted before it's a really silly comment. It really demeans you to continue posting it when it is so obviously incorrect, and its incorrectness has been described previously in response to your posts.

1. As I've pointed out previously, an owner in a mini has no less access to the weeks in an exchange company spacebank as an owner at a solitary resort who uses the same exchange company.
2. Not only that, RCI and II actually grant preferences to members of minis that they don't grant to their general membership. That includes benefits such as exchange first and guaranteed access to all weeks in inventory.
3. One of the big benefits of a mini is that there is a list of avalable resorts that an owner can exchange into without an exchange fee and with guaranteed availability, i.e., without having to wait on tenterhooks for a reservation to come through.

It's pretty simple really. Any exchange available to an owner at a solitary resort is also available to the owner of a mini that is affiliated with that exchange company. But in addition, the mini owner has access to a group of resorts on a first come basis, no exchange fee, that the solitary resort owner can only access as an exchange, paying an exchange fee and having to wait for an exchange that may or many not come through. (Remember that in many cases the mini is selective about which weeks they give to the exchange company, and some weeks that are used for exchange may never make it into the exchange company spacebank.)

Unlike you, Steve, I actually own weeks in a mini system. I also own fixed weeks at a solitary resorts. I can speak from experience, as can many other mini system owners. I have yet to see a mini owner post a complaint that they are offered fewer timesharing options than a solitary owner.

Can you point to a single case of a mini-owner having reduced exchanging options as compared with a solitary resort owner? I can say unequivocally that my mini system gives me more options than do my solitary weeks. That is personal experience, not speculation.

********

Actually trying to rebut an argument this nonsensical is a lot like trying to rebut an argument that starts off by saying, "Since the sky is green ...". If someone truly believes the sky is green, how could you even begin a rebuttal?

There certainly are issues to be aware of in minis, and they do have their drawbacks But fewer options for owners is not one of them.

****

You are very articulate in citing your actual experience involving OBX resorts to counter and trump what you believe as speculations of others. If you truly beleve that actual experience trumps speculations and hypothesizing, perhaps you ought to cut with the same razor here.

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

I really love the logic of those who proclaim that the mini-system is a substitute for and will replace exchange companies.

When the limited range of options in a mini-system is pointed out, the retort is ''well their members can USE THE EXCHANGE COMPANIES, too''. If these mini-system members are back to using the exchange companies to get any depth in their exchanges, how in the world can the mini-systems be said to be subsitutes or a replacement for exchange companies??? Members still have to use the exchange companies to get any depth to exchanges.

Steve -

You've made that comment several times and, as I've posted before it's a really silly comment. It really demeans you to continue posting it when it is so obviously incorrect, and its incorrectness has been described previously in response to your posts.

1. As I've pointed out previously, an owner in a mini has no less access to the weeks in an exchange company spacebank as an owner at a solitary resort who uses the same exchange company.
2. Not only that, RCI and II actually grant preferences to members of minis that they don't grant to their general membership. That includes benefits such as exchange first and guaranteed access to all weeks in inventory.
3. One of the big benefits of a mini is that there is a list of avalable resorts that an owner can exchange into without an exchange fee and with guaranteed availability, i.e., without having to wait on tenterhooks for a reservation to come through.

It's pretty simple really. Any exchange available to an owner at a solitary resort is also available to the owner of a mini that is affiliated with that exchange company. But in addition, the mini owner has access to a group of resorts on a first come basis, no exchange fee, that the solitary resort owner can only access as an exchange, paying an exchange fee and having to wait for an exchange that may or many not come through. (Remember that in many cases the mini is selective about which weeks they give to the exchange company, and some weeks that are used for exchange may never make it into the exchange company spacebank.)

Unlike you, Steve, I actually own weeks in a mini system. I also own fixed weeks at a solitary resorts. I can speak from experience, as can many other mini system owners. I have yet to see a mini owner post a complaint that they are offered fewer timesharing options than a solitary owner.

Can you point to a single case of a mini-owner having reduced exchanging options as compared with a solitary resort owner? I can say unequivocally that my mini system gives me more options than do my solitary weeks. That is personal experience, not speculation.

********

Actually trying to rebut an argument this nonsensical is a lot like trying to rebut an argument that starts off by saying, "Since the sky is green ...". If someone truly believes the sky is green, how could you even begin a rebuttal?

There certainly are issues to be aware of in minis, and they do have their drawbacks But fewer options for owners is not one of them.

****

You are very articulate in citing your actual experience involving OBX resorts to counter and trump what you believe as speculations of others. If you truly beleve that actual experience trumps speculations and hypothesizing, perhaps you ought to cut with the same razor here.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

I really love the logic of those who proclaim that the mini-system is a substitute for and will replace exchange companies.

....

Gosh, Steve, I really love the logic of those who put words in other peoples' mouths. Where did I say it was a substitute for and will replace exchange companies? Can you repeat after me, "Straw man. Straw man." Try it. It's good for you.

I also really love the logic of those who proclaim that their personal experience is better than the projections of other people, except that when the personal experience of other people doesn't support their argument, personal experience is deemed irrelevant.

****

I suppose I could tell you all about how I find it ever so much easier to reserve time in places we want to go to by booking through our mini. We can now reserve directly at places where previously we could only put in ongoing requests when we only owned at solitary resorts. Or I can tell about how when we were offered exchanges with solitary resorts we had deposited, we had to turn them down because it was too close to checkin and all the FF seats had been filled.

And how I can book time in ski areas from which I was almost totally shut out using RCI - when we used to do trade tests other people could see resorts but I couldn't. Now I can book those weeks, directly. Without an exchange fee.

Or I can give my unit at my mini to an exchange company, just the same as if I were an owner at a solitary. Heck, SFX offers me three-for-one weeks, just as they do with one of my solitary weeks resorts.

I don't see any reduction in options or flexibility there, do you? Am I missing something, Steve? Is there some restriction that causes exchange companies to not want my mini weeks that I don't know about?

Tell me, Steve. I'm anxious to know, since you know so much more about how minis operate than do we stupid owners of minis

***

Oh I could go on about all of that, but I'm sure that direct, specific owner evidence such as that means nothing to you, because it doesn't fit your pet theories.

So go on believing and propounding your fantasies, Steve. In the real world where owners of minis actually own and make exchanges, rest assured that it's quite different.

*****

So here's my challenge to you, Steve. Describe for us one single way in which owning a mini causes an owner to have fewer options than owners at solitary resorts?

[edited clarification re CaliDave's note below] You are making a blanket assertion that owners of minis have fewer options than owners at solitary resorts. So what is inherent in the structure of minis that causes owners of minis to have fewer options.

I'll be eagerly awaiting your learned response.

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

So here's my challenge to you, Steve. Describe for us one single way in which owning a mini causes an owner to have fewer options than owners at solitary resorts?[/B]

I'll be eagerly awaiting your learned response.

With HGVC you have less options
No access to Last Call, Extra Vacations or Online searches.
No trading a studio for a 2bd

I think there are similar situations with Worldmark? but I'm not positive.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

With HGVC you have less options
No access to Last Call, Extra Vacations or Online searches.
No trading a studio for a 2bd

I think there are similar situations with Worldmark? but I'm not positive.

But that's not a limitation inherent to minis. That's a limitation to that particular mini.

If I registered my mini with RCI (which I haven't bothered doing because I no longer see a need for RCI in my life), I would still have full access to all of those things.

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

Many resorts in mini systems (HGVC, Starwood) only trade with one major exchange company.
If you own a single deeded week, many have the option of both.

[BocaBum99 Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close BocaBum99]

Minis are FAR too limited in what they have to offer.

Carolinian,

You keep saying this quote, but you are making the wrong comparison. A mini-system should be measured in comparison to a single resort.

A single resort is much smaller than a mini-system. Therefore, the negotiating power of the mini is much greater than any single resort with the exchange companies. So, owners in those minis will always get more for their week than the equivalent single resort.

Also, when comparing a single resort to a mini, the way you should look at it is you either use your week or you rent or exchange it. In a mini, you use any of the resorts, you rent any of the resorts or you exchange any of the resorts. This is more options.

As more and more resorts affilate with minis, there is less inventory directly available for small independent exchangers. In essence, they are getting squeeze out just like the neighborhood hardware store or the local grocery store.

This trend will continue not because I say it will happen. It will happen because it is how the players will negotiate and compete with each other.

[Mark @SFX Industry Representative Find all posts View Profile Close Mark @SFX]

As more and more resorts affilate with minis, there is less inventory directly available for small independent exchangers. In essence, they are getting squeeze out just like the neighborhood hardware store or the local grocery store.

Bocabum - I can't speak for the other independents, but as far as SFX is concerned, your statement is very inaccurate. There are a number of resort /mini systems that set aside a blocks of space for SFX in addition to their "mini-partners" of resorts. SFX provides them with preferred access to other mini-systems and resorts.

Remember I mentioned a while ago, the SFX business model 15 years ago forcasted the creation of Strategic Trading Blocks (Mini-systems). Well... this is what we have been a party to, in their creation and development.

There are also several mini's that are in negotiation with SFX to administer their internal exchange component. SFX has been an active promoter and developer of mini-systems for a number of years.

In fact we are growing so quickly, which is market driven from both the industry and the timeshare consumer sectors, we are in negotiation right now to "buy" a small 20,000 square foot office space to handle our expansion. If all goes well, we will be occupying that property next May.

"Getting squeezed out.....", not even close.