RCI vs II Timeshare Trading

[ccigliano]

I remember when DVC switched over to RCI from II, most of us were upset with the quality vs quantity issue. While RCI has 3 times as many resorts, II has all the high end resorts (Marriotts, Hiltons, Hyatts) that we want to trade our DVC resorts for. I also remember comments about how each trading company dealt with trading power and time in the queue for trade differently. Does one trading company value time in the queue more than the other, or do they both use the same methodology as to the location of your trade, its overall quality, and the rank of the week you're trading as red time etc. Any info on how each one works and if they work differently would be appreaciated.

Thanks.

 

[natt]

Can't answer your questions, but I definitely fall into the category of not happy with the switch to RCI. I've come to the conclusion that it's Disney's way to make sure we stay within their property.

I told DH that he either needs to believe me when I tell him that the options stink, or he needs to get on the site and see for himself.. and that we can still stay at DVC's and just reTrain ourselves to take 'nonpark' trips... that could take some withdrawl, but personally I can see myself spending more time by a pool than I've done in other WDW visits!

 

[LoveToDisney]

I agree that the switch to RCI has been a terrible decision for DVC. I hope they switch back to II when the RCI contract has run its 3-year course.

 

[bwvBound]

Does one trading company value time in the queue more than the other, or do they both use the same methodology as to the location of your trade, its overall quality, and the rank of the week you're trading as red time etc.

I do not believe that either exchange company places much value on "time in the queue" unless all other conditions are equal. There are many conditions that will increase one's chance for a successful trade over simply "time in the queue": internal trade preferences, demand for the specific deposit used for the trade, "request first" vs "deposit first" influences, etc.

 

[chalee94]

hilton is actually with RCI, IIRC.

both RCI and II give more value to earlier trades...from what i understand RCI historically puts a little more of a premium on the timing than II, but TUG is your best bet for information like this. both II and RCI will use slightly different formulas to try to balance a like-for-like trade.

with DVC, you're not trading a specific week - DVC banks whatever weeks they choose. and when your trade power is always averaged to whatever DVC banks rather than what you actually book, that will also tend to hurt you somewhat. buying an expensive timeshare like DVC (expensive both in upfront cost and annual dues) to trade is just a bad idea...

both II and RCI also have a quality filter, which can limit your options in an effort to protect you from inferior trades.

for those actually paying the fees, i think II is a little cheaper.

if dean or littlestar disagree, i concede in advance that they are probably correct...

 

[Dean]

I remember when DVC switched over to RCI from II, most of us were upset with the quality vs quantity issue. While RCI has 3 times as many resorts, II has all the high end resorts (Marriotts, Hiltons, Hyatts) that we want to trade our DVC resorts for. I also remember comments about how each trading company dealt with trading power and time in the queue for trade differently. Does one trading company value time in the queue more than the other, or do they both use the same methodology as to the location of your trade, its overall quality, and the rank of the week you're trading as red time etc. Any info on how each one works and if they work differently would be appreaciated.

Thanks.

It's about 2 to 1, not 3 to 1 on the number of resorts but many of them are in both systems including some of the better ones. Neither II nor RCI gives out their trade formula or results but in general it appears that RCI puts more emphasis on lead time and demand of the week and resort where II puts more emphasis on unit size and resort quality (in the trading picture). For II resort quality, and unit size to a degree, is like a password to get into a certain group, if you don't have the PW, you can't trade to that option no matter how much trade power you otherwise have. In general both use unit size, lead time to deposit, demand of the week, demand of the resort and resort quality as factors.

Given that only about 3% of member exchange, I doubt it'll matter much in the long run. And I wouldn't be surprised to see a change back in a few years.

 

[littlestar]

I actually like both exchange companies, but give the edge to II because of Marriott, Hyatt, Westin, Sheraton, and the Royal resorts (although RCI has a sprinkling of a few older Marriotts, Sheratons and I think maybe a Royal).

RCI has Hilton (which I really like the Hilton Vacation Club brand). But, II has cheaper exchange fees than RCI does. If I could only keep one membership, it would be II simply because of my love of Marriott Vacation Club.

I really wish DVC was dual affiliated with both exchange companies - RCI and II. That way DVC members could still potentially trade for Marriott and Westin (especially for Maui).

 

[Dean]

I actually like both exchange companies, but give the edge to II because of Marriott, Hyatt, Westin, Sheraton, and the Royal resorts (although RCI has a sprinkling of a few older Marriotts, Sheratons and I think maybe a Royal).

RCI has Hilton (which I really like the Hilton Vacation Club brand). But, II has cheaper exchange fees than RCI does. If I could only keep one membership, it would be II simply because of my love of Marriott Vacation Club.

I really wish DVC was dual affiliated with both exchange companies - RCI and II. That way DVC members could still potentially trade for Marriott and Westin (especially for Maui).

They can still do private exchanges and use the independent exchange companies. There are a few older Marriott's and the Royal Mayan but II still gets the bulk of deposits from both locations. DVC considered dual affiliation a few years ago but decided not to. It's unlikely they'll do a dual affiliation the way they're set up. I'd only expect that option if DVC were to go away from the corporate membership route and allowed members to join directly.

 

[littlestar]

I've often wondered why DVC didn't cut a deal for the membership to have some type of access to the Getaways (when they were with II) or Extra Vacations or Last Call opportunities with RCI as a selling point for buying DVC. To me, that's a sweet perk to owning a timeshare is being able to book the cash inventory specials through II and RCI.

Come to think of it, all of my relatives that bought timeshares were sold on it partially because of the "bonus weeks" that were touted during the sales presentations. Of course, given that only 3 percent of DVC members trade out, maybe it wouldn't be that big of a sales tool to get more people to buy DVC by offering access to the discounted cash deals.

I guess if a DVC member wanted access to excess inventory deals, they could always join DAE for free or one of the other independent exchange companies.

 

[ccigliano]

Thanks for the info and believe me I don't plan on trading my DVC for an RCI property. I was having a conversation with a co-worker who bought a Wyndham in the Berkshires and is trying to trade for Maui and Kauai via RCI. While I did say the most of the higher end resort like the Marriotts were in II, he was thinking that his 20 month lead time was going to seal the deal for his trade. I didn't think that RCI puts that much emphasis on time which is why I asked the question. I am not sure what his odds are but I guess only time will tell. Thanks for such quick responses.

 

[Dean]

Thanks for the info and believe me I don't plan on trading my DVC for an RCI property. I was having a conversation with a co-worker who bought a Wyndham in the Berkshires and is trying to trade for Maui and Kauai via RCI. While I did say the most of the higher end resort like the Marriotts were in II, he was thinking that his 20 month lead time was going to seal the deal for his trade. I didn't think that RCI puts that much emphasis on time which is why I asked the question. I am not sure what his odds are but I guess only time will tell. Thanks for such quick responses.

At least he's early. It will depend on specifics including the week deposited. If he's trading in weeks, wyndham doesn't tend to deposit good week for trade. Still, if he's realistic and flexible, he had a good chance of success. Likely better than DVC due to more options.

 

[bwvBound]

Requesting early is certainly better than late! Do note that posts in this conversation reference time for both the request and for the deposit. An early deposit is typically rewarded with greater trade power than late deposit for most properties in RCI.

While time of request may not overcome other factors related to the exchange -- an early request puts one ahead of others with similar trade power and may allow the request to benefit from bulk deposits, temporary adjustments in trade values, etc.

 

[dclfun]

I will never, ever trade out my DVC for an RCI property, esp. when I can pay cash for them via Skyauction, etc. at a really low cost. I've tried some of them via a cash ressie and while they weren't dumps, they weren't great either. DVC is far superior in quality to anything via RCI in a location I would choose ( and please forgive me here as yes, I know there are some very nice RCI locations...but it's not the majority). IMO II had better selection of resorts that were more similar to DVC in quality. If only 3% of members are now trading out via RCI, is that any different than when we were trading with II, or do most people feel as I do and don't want to sacrifice the Disney quality which is why we purchased DVC to start with?.---Kathy

 

[Dean]

If only 3% of members are now trading out via RCI, is that any different than when we were trading with II, or do most people feel as I do and don't want to sacrifice the Disney quality which is why we purchased DVC to start with?.---Kathy

The 3% number was average and historical. I'm not at home to refer to all the specifics but it was actually higher early on when DVC was with RCI. For II it was below 3% and crept up to just over 3%. Given the transition, I think you'll see lower numbers party due to the fact there is crossover in the 2009 year and that people are re-learning a system that is now different. Ultimately I suspect it'll settle out somewhere around the 3% but it may be a little higher as though II has better, I think getting a specific match under II may be a little more likely. We won't have any hard data until June of this year and even that will likely not be representative until another year has passed.