Must Read Post From An Insider on Timeshare Talk!

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

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.

Mark -

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the many of the minis operating through SFX actually have preferred access to inventory at other minis? I.e, that the mini-to-mini exchange preference will result in a mini owner having greater access to inventory in another (within the preference block) than would an owner at a solitary resort. Is that correct (I don't want to put words in your mouth.)?

And if that is correct, does it follow that, from your perspective at SFX, owners at minis do not have diminished exchange flexibility through SFX, and actually have more options than owners outside of the minis?

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

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.

Mark,

Congratulations. Keep up the great work. I think you misread my post. I didn't say independent exchange companies. I said independent exchangers. In other words, owners at small resorts. This dialog is about whether or not a single resort or a mini system is more effective for an owner.

Even SFX contributes to this situation. If someone doesn't own at a Gold Crown or 5* resort, then the more successful SFX is, the more they get squeezed out of getting good exchanges since the places they go for exchanges are losing prime week deposits left and right.

They lose them to SFX. They lose them to owners who rent their prime weeks. They lose them to mini-systems who aggregrate trading power and leave the less popular weeks for the mass exchange companies.

I own at several mini-systems. I have no problem getting prime weeks at any of them. Whereas others can't get what they want through exchange.

Also, just because you are growing substantially doesn't mean that the whole exchange market is growing as fast as the overall market. I don't know the exact numbers, but I think most of the minis are growing at over 30% per year. I don't think the total exchange volume is growing that fast.

I would love to see the rate of growth of internal exchanges versus external exchanges. I think that number would be growing much faster.

So, given this assessment, would you rather be a standard resort with a fixed week in a seasonal resort? Or, an owner at any of the mini-systems such as WorldMark, Fairfield, Bluegreen, HGVC, Hyatt, Marriott, or Club Sunterra? Who is going to get the better vacations on average?

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

SFX is not the only independent doing that. DAE won the contract a couple of years ago to administer Australia's largest mini-system, the Exchange and Play system of Classic Resorts. One of the competitors they beat out for that contract was none other than RCI.

Also, many management companies and independent resorts, work with the independent exchange companies, including DAE and Platinum and probably others through CARE (Cooperative Association of Resort Exchangers).

If mini-systems had any inherent superiority over independent resorts, there would never have been any independent resorts. The first timeshare out of the gate was Swiss-based Hapimag, a points-based mini-system, back in 1963. Hapimag is still around, but has been far overshadowed by independent resorts. A French rival came up with the Weeks based model shortly afterwards, and it was that model that the market prefered.

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

Look at a map. Most minis are terribly provincial. Most US minis have limited or no internal options for Europe or the Caribbean. Sunterra has a presence in Europe for now, but that may soon be sold to Club La Costa. Similarly, Australia's Exchange and Play has no internal options outside Australia / New Zealand, and Hapimag and Club La Costa have very limited internal options outside Europe.

The result is that for any depth to exchanging, mini-system members still have to participate in an exchange system. Paying dues to RCI or II every year, whether or not they use them that year for exchange is not efficient. One option is for them to junk RCI/II and use independent exchange companies with free membership, I guess.

At least one mini, Hapimag, does not allow use of ANY outside exchange company, affiliated or independent.

If you only or primarily go to places that the mini-system has internal options, as you apparently do, then you may not need the depth of exchanges that others do.

If the limited network of a mini-system happens to correspond with the limited travel horizons of a member, it may be all the member needs. That is not going to be most people, however.

Why don't you post the number of resorts in each mini-system compared to the number of resorts availible through exchange companies? That will clearly show just how very limited the minis are.

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.

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

Mark -

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the many of the minis operating through SFX actually have preferred access to inventory at other minis? I.e, that the mini-to-mini exchange preference will result in a mini owner having greater access to inventory in another (within the preference block) than would an owner at a solitary resort. Is that correct (I don't want to put words in your mouth.)?

And if that is correct, does it follow that, from your perspective at SFX, owners at minis do not have diminished exchange flexibility through SFX, and actually have more options than owners outside of the minis?

Steve - Good question. It is a situation where SFX Members of non-mini groups do not have any diminished exchange options as compared to those who are part of an SFX managed mini-system. Their trading power and all other aspects are seamless.

There is however an advantage to SFX with the trickle-down benefit to our Members because this gives us great additional resources for accessing inventory... and thus booking Members.

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

Mark,

Congratulations. Keep up the great work. I think you misread my post. I didn't say independent exchange companies. I said independent exchangers. In other words, owners at small resorts. This dialog is about whether or not a single resort or a mini system is more effective for an owner.

Even SFX contributes to this situation. If someone doesn't own at a Gold Crown or 5* resort, then the more successful SFX is, the more they get squeezed out of getting good exchanges since the places they go for exchanges are losing prime week deposits left and right.

They lose them to SFX. They lose them to owners who rent their prime weeks. They lose them to mini-systems who aggregrate trading power and leave the less popular weeks for the mass exchange companies.

I own at several mini-systems. I have no problem getting prime weeks at any of them. Whereas others can't get what they want through exchange.

Also, just because you are growing substantially doesn't mean that the whole exchange market is growing as fast as the overall market. I don't know the exact numbers, but I think most of the minis are growing at over 30% per year. I don't think the total exchange volume is growing that fast.

I would love to see the rate of growth of internal exchanges versus external exchanges. I think that number would be growing much faster.

So, given this assessment, would you rather be a standard resort with a fixed week in a seasonal resort? Or, an owner at any of the mini-systems such as WorldMark, Fairfield, Bluegreen, HGVC, Hyatt, Marriott, or Club Sunterra? Who is going to get the better vacations on average?

Bocabum - apologies. You are right, I did misread your statement. Next time I promise to wear my glasses.

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

Why don't you post the number of resorts in each mini-system compared to the number of resorts availible through exchange companies? That will clearly show just how very limited the minis are.

Ok - I'll make the comparison:

I'll compare my Raintree Vacation Club mini and my Winners Circle:

With Raintree Vacation Club I can access:

• all Raintree Vacation Club resorts, with direct booking
• all RCI resorts in the RCI Weeks Spacebank, subject to ordinary trading power restrictions.
• Access to all independent exchange companies.

With Winners Circle I have access to:

• all RCI resorts in the RCI Weeks Spacebank, subject to ordinary trading power restrictions. But no special access to Raintree Vacation Club units.
• Access to all independent exchange companies.

Advantage: Raintree Vacation Club. It gives me every bit of access to inventory as does Winners Circle, plus it gives me direct access to the RVC inventory that WC can only occasionally sniff.

Now that I've responded to your challenge, why don't you respond to the challenge I gave you first.

****

BTW - don't you think it's silly to pretend that owners in minis don't have access to the inventory of exchange companies?

You made the statement that owners at minis had fewer options than owner of weeks at solitary resorts. When confronted by the sillineess of that statement, your now basing your argument on the equally silly notion that we should exclude exchange company trading from the options available to mini owners.

****

You could try to present an argument that owning in a mini is not a cost effective way to access exchange company inventory. That's not an argument I agree with, because the trade perferences granted to minis can make them a cost effective way of obtaining a top dog trader. In addition, where the mini is points based or otherwise allows splitting of a unit, often owners in a mini can extract two top weeks from the Spacebank, whereas if they deposited that same week with the exchange company as a solitary unit, they could only secure one trade.

****

The result is that for any depth to exchanging, mini-system members still have to participate in an exchange system. Paying dues to RCI or II every year, whether or not they use them that year for exchange is not efficient. One option is for them to junk RCI/II and use independent exchange companies with free membership, I guess.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Many (if not most) owners in minis do not pay any membership dues to RCI or II. The mini is a member, and the minis membership covers all it's members.

In our case, our Raintree has not been converted to Points, so we aren't covered by the RVC Club membership. So I have been using the 3-for-2 membership available to VRI owners. Were I to add my RVC unit to our RCI account, we wouldn't pay any extra.

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

Again you sidestep the issue, and you refuse to give the numbers.

The issue is that the contention by some that timesharers can just use the minis and not use the exchange companies is silly. Your answers ADMIT that they have to use the exchange companies to have any depth.

How many resorts do the minis have in their systems? A couple may have about 100, some are closer to 50, and some are less than that. All of these represent an extremely narrow range of choices. Of course, there may be some with very narrow travel horizons and a mini may match those limited horizons, but that is not going to be most timesharers. I can see why you avoided anwering on the numbers. These low numbers mean that for most members who want to exchange, just staying within the mini is too confining so they have to use exchange companies. The mini is too narrow to be a standalone alternative.

Actually, there is one group with a very specific travel horizon, those who want to go to the same resort at the same time every year. From looking at actual numbers at resorts, in our area, this amounts to over two thirds of owners. A points-based mini does not address their desires, and is too narrow for those who want to travel to a lot of new places.

At many minis, governance is developer controlled, another huge negative. Members have no real voice. At independent resorts, most are member-governed. I'll take homeowner democracy over developer dictatorship any day!

You say members of minis don't have to pay exchange company membership fees? On the contrary, they are paying and it is just rolled into their fee to the mini. This may be a plus for those who want to be members of exchange companies, because they undoubtedly get a cheaper bulk rate, but is a negative for those who are fed up with the big boys and want to use the independents. Those members are still stuck paying for the RCI or II membeships that are still rolled into their fees to the mini even though they are actually using someone else for exchanging. This is a negative, not a positive. Also what about the own to use people, who don't want to belong to an exchange company at all? This is over 2/3 of the owners in my area. Why should these people be compelled to pay even a discounted exchange company fee?

Ok - I'll make the comparison:

I'll compare my Raintree Vacation Club mini and my Winners Circle:

With Raintree Vacation Club I can access:

• all Raintree Vacation Club resorts, with direct booking
• all RCI resorts in the RCI Weeks Spacebank, subject to ordinary trading power restrictions.
• Access to all independent exchange companies.

With Winners Circle I have access to:

• all RCI resorts in the RCI Weeks Spacebank, subject to ordinary trading power restrictions. But no special access to Raintree Vacation Club units.
• Access to all independent exchange companies.

Advantage: Raintree Vacation Club. It gives me every bit of access to inventory as does Winners Circle, plus it gives me direct access to the RVC inventory that WC can only occasionally sniff.

Now that I've responded to your challenge, why don't you respond to the challenge I gave you first.

****

BTW - don't you think it's silly to pretend that owners in minis don't have access to the inventory of exchange companies?

You made the statement that owners at minis had fewer options than owner of weeks at solitary resorts. When confronted by the sillineess of that statement, your now basing your argument on the equally silly notion that we should exclude exchange company trading from the options available to mini owners.

****

You could try to present an argument that owning in a mini is not a cost effective way to access exchange company inventory. That's not an argument I agree with, because the trade perferences granted to minis can make them a cost effective way of obtaining a top dog trader. In addition, where the mini is points based or otherwise allows splitting of a unit, often owners in a mini can extract two top weeks from the Spacebank, whereas if they deposited that same week with the exchange company as a solitary unit, they could only secure one trade.

****



Wrong, wrong, wrong. Many (if not most) owners in minis do not pay any membership dues to RCI or II. The mini is a member, and the minis membership covers all it's members.

In our case, our Raintree has not been converted to Points, so we aren't covered by the RVC Club membership. So I have been using the 3-for-2 membership available to VRI owners. Were I to add my RVC unit to our RCI account, we wouldn't pay any extra.

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

Carolinian,



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.

Actually, many of the minis DO work with the independent exchange companies. I have gotten two excellent summer exchanges to Europe from DAE that came from their trading partner Club La Costa, a European mini-system. And, of course, the leading Australian mini, Classic Holidays' Exchange and Play, is managed by DAE.

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

Again you sidestep the issue, and you refuse to give the numbers.

The issue is that the contention by some that timesharers can just use the minis and not use the exchange companies is silly. Your answers ADMIT that they have to use the exchange companies to have any depth.

This is NOT the claim I am making. I am claiming that, in general, someone who owns a mini has MORE EXCHANGE OPTIONS than owners of most independent RESORTS. They can book reservations at any of the internal resorts, they can trade as always with all exchange companies and with greater trading power.

And, by the way, it is possible to own minis and NOT be a member of an exchange company. I own lots of Bluegreen, Fairfield and WorldMark points. With the resorts in those systems, I can directly book resorts in those systems that I want and do a DIRECT exchange for most other places I want to go. And, by renting, I can get the rest. So, it is possible to do without an exchange company. Most people wouldn't do what I do, so I am not making that a general case.

I use exchange companies because I get great deals out of them, not because I need them. As soon as I no longer can get steals, I won't use them anymore. For example, I just exchanged for the Four Seasons Scottsdale. It cost me $375 for the week in a 2 bedroom unit including the exchange fee. I used II and acquired it via a sighting on this board. It would cost me a lot more to try to rent or direct exchange for that unit.

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

Actually, many of the minis DO work with the independent exchange companies. I have gotten two excellent summer exchanges to Europe from DAE that came from their trading partner Club La Costa, a European mini-system. And, of course, the leading Australian mini, Classic Holidays' Exchange and Play, is managed by DAE.

I never claimed they didn't. I claim that minis, in general, have more options for exchanging or booking a reservation than does an independent RESORT owner. Owners at a mini can book a reservation at their home resort, at one of the many internal resorts or with an external exchange company. And, given the negotiating power that minis have, owners in them tend to get higher trading power than their underlying ownership should entitled them to.

My quote is not about independent exchange companies. My quote is about independent RESORTS or those who are NOT part of a mini-system. I caused confusion by saying independent exchanger. I meant that to be an owner of a resort that is independent of a mini-system.

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

This is NOT the claim I am making. I am claiming that, in general, someone who owns a mini has MORE EXCHANGE OPTIONS than owners of most independent RESORTS. They can book reservations at any of the internal resorts, they can trade as always with all exchange companies and with greater trading power.

And, by the way, it is possible to own minis and NOT be a member of an exchange company. I own lots of Bluegreen, Fairfield and WorldMark points. With the resorts in those systems, I can directly book resorts in those systems that I want and do a DIRECT exchange for most other places I want to go. And, by renting, I can get the rest. So, it is possible to do without an exchange company. Most people wouldn't do what I do, so I am not making that a general case.

I use exchange companies because I get great deals out of them, not because I need them. As soon as I no longer can get steals, I won't use them anymore. For example, I just exchanged for the Four Seasons Scottsdale. It cost me $375 for the week in a 2 bedroom unit including the exchange fee. I used II and acquired it via a sighting on this board. It would cost me a lot more to try to rent or direct exchange for that unit.

Oh yeah, one more thing. If I can do it (rid myself of requiring an exchange company), so can a mini-system. If they did, their owners would reap the benefits of their programs. I predict that minis will start doing direct exchanges between each other further reducing good weeks for other third party exchange companies like RCI and II.

The other claim I am making is that over time, the share of internal direct reservations will increase as will direct exchanges between minis. This will result in a smaller percentage over time of 3rd party exchanges to internal exchanges.

Sure, there will always be options for a small resort with 20 units to exchange. There will always be a place to put dog weeks that nobody wants. It's just that what these small resorts will be able to acquire through those exchange companies will be less and less over time as the minis hog up all the good weeks for their owners. If that small resort is a standard resort, then SFX will reduce access to those quality resorts as well. As high quality resorts figure this out, they will either join resort groups or do what Orange Lake Country Club is doing, creating its own internal exchange company.

In any event, it's hard to argue against the notion that 3rd party exchange is decreasing in importance to the overall market due to the minis and rentals.

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

Actually, many of the ''better'' weeks are at the smaller resorts, which have better locations. I bet most timesharers would rather score a week at Allen House or one of the small oceanfront resorts on Paradise Island than at Westgate of OLCC or Vacation Village at Parkway in Orlando. The fact that VV at Parkway is a GC (''quality'') does not even budge that equation. Location always trumps award status.

Minis are too limited to have that much impact, and rentals have not really increased all that much. I look at the volume of the two leading owner rental listing sites on the web, Redweek and MyResortNetwork, and it is, well, underwhelming! The traditional storefront rental agency on the OBX does more volume just from the Outer Banks than both of those internet sites combined for the whole state of North Carolina! That tells me that rentals by owners haven't really increased all that much.

Sure, there will always be options for a small resort with 20 units to exchange. There will always be a place to put dog weeks that nobody wants. It's just that what these small resorts will be able to acquire through those exchange companies will be less and less over time as the minis hog up all the good weeks for their owners. If that small resort is a standard resort, then SFX will reduce access to those quality resorts as well. As high quality resorts figure this out, they will either join resort groups or do what Orange Lake Country Club is doing, creating its own internal exchange company.

In any event, it's hard to argue against the notion that 3rd party exchange is decreasing in importance to the overall market due to the minis and rentals.

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

Why don't you post the number of resorts in each mini-system compared to the number of resorts availible through exchange companies? That will clearly show just how very limited the minis are.

Ok - I''ll put up the numbers, but I'm sure that you will also agree that when making comparisons, we should compare apples with apples, and oranges with apples.

So, since your operative rule seems to be to consider what exchange options mini owners have if they are precluded from using exchange companies, I'll also compare minis, with exchange options excluded, to solitary resorts with exchange options excluded.

Raintree Vacation Club: 29
Winners Circle: 1 (but will likely increase to over 100 when the VRI internal trading program is implemented.
Sunterra Po`ipu: 1

I think it's a silly comparison, but if you insist that silly comparisons be made, there it is for you.

******

You made the assertion that owners of minis have fewer exchange options than owners at solitary resorts, and I continue to repeat that's a silly statement. And while chastising me for not responding to your illogical challenge you have totally ignored my challenge to you.

The simple fact is, Steve, that owners at minis have just as many, if not more exchange options at solitary resorts.

The best assertion you can make against minis is that perhaps mini owners may have to pay a bit more to access that inventory. But that's merely a cost effectiveness argument - and even if we grant it (which I don't, but I don't want to open that issue right now), the reality is that mini owners have just as many, if not more, exchange options as do owners at solitaries.

****

You seem to always found these arguments on the premise that most owners will want to exchange almost every year, and that when they do they will want to visit locales all over the globe. If that's the opening premise, then I totally concur that owning at minis is not a very effective idea.

But conversely, if the starting premise is that timeshare owners only want to visit a small number of locales, then minis will fit in nicely because that is the clientele to whom minis cater.

The reality is that there are both types of owners, and developers have provided product to serve both markets.

****

I gladly accept that there are many people for whom minis are not a good idea. Heck, one of the reasons I still have one of my solitaries is because it gives me access to resorts outside my mini.

Unlike you, though, I seem willing to accept that there is more than one way that timesharing can work for owners, and I don't think it's a bad thing to give owners the freedom to find options that fit their individual needs.

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

Still playing your straw man games by trying to shift my argument, and then respond to your distortion, I see.

The issue was whether minis would make exchange companies obsolete, and the answer is NO because they are far too limited. I have already conceded, which you do not seem to want to recognize, that there is a certain niche of owners with limited exchange horizons for whom a mini may meet their needs.

I am contending that using a mini alone as a substitute for an exchange company is simply NOT a viable option for most timeshare exchangers. When you respond by talking about people using a mini in conjunction with an exchange company, you are in effect conceding my point, although you don't seem to realize it.

The correct companision on numbers on this issue is that using Raintree Vacation Club alone gives access to 29 resorts, whereas using an exchange company gives access to thousands of them.

Please note that my discussion is about exchangers behavior. I did note that the larger group of owners, those who own to use at a specific resort at a specific times, are themselves not particularly well served by minis. Those people are better off with fixed weeks. What we are discussing is what is better for exchangers.

I don't know about Raintree, but I know that many minis have a huge negative in lack of member control. Their governing boards reflect developer dictatorship instead of homeowner democracy. I'll take a member-run HOA any day!

Ok - I''ll put up the numbers, but I'm sure that you will also agree that when making comparisons, we should compare apples with apples, and oranges with apples.

So, since your operative rule seems to be to consider what exchange options mini owners have if they are precluded from using exchange companies, I'll also compare minis, with exchange options excluded, to solitary resorts with exchange options excluded.

Raintree Vacation Club: 29
Winners Circle: 1 (but will likely increase to over 100 when the VRI internal trading program is implemented.
Sunterra Po`ipu: 1

I think it's a silly comparison, but if you insist that silly comparisons be made, there it is for you.

******

You made the assertion that owners of minis have fewer exchange options than owners at solitary resorts, and I continue to repeat that's a silly statement. And while chastising me for not responding to your illogical challenge you have totally ignored my challenge to you.

The simple fact is, Steve, that owners at minis have just as many, if not more exchange options at solitary resorts.

The best assertion you can make against minis is that perhaps mini owners may have to pay a bit more to access that inventory. But that's merely a cost effectiveness argument - and even if we grant it (which I don't, but I don't want to open that issue right now), the reality is that mini owners have just as many, if not more, exchange options as do owners at solitaries.

****

You seem to always found these arguments on the premise that most owners will want to exchange almost every year, and that when they do they will want to visit locales all over the globe. If that's the opening premise, then I totally concur that owning at minis is not a very effective idea.

But conversely, if the starting premise is that timeshare owners only want to visit a small number of locales, then minis will fit in nicely because that is the clientele to whom minis cater.

The reality is that there are both types of owners, and developers have provided product to serve both markets.

****

I gladly accept that there are many people for whom minis are not a good idea. Heck, one of the reasons I still have one of my solitaries is because it gives me access to resorts outside my mini.

Unlike you, though, I seem willing to accept that there is more than one way that timesharing can work for owners, and I don't think it's a bad thing to give owners the freedom to find options that fit their individual needs.