Mea cupla - I know it was off topic, but lets be honest, most threads stray.
Haha, very true. That wasn't really what I was getting at. My point was that one post included some very suspect analysis with an attempt at cheerleading. The response post completely misinterpreted this support and chastised the first poster. Then a third poster comes on and praises the suspect analysis. It was just a big comedy of errors, that's all. I won't ever criticize thread drift because once posters start responding to each other and not the OP it's inevitable, and part of the evolution of the conversation.
First, I am not sure why you must respond with an apparent attitude. Your post comes across that way, so if you were not trying to come across that way, I apologize. If you were, why?
I'm sorry you feel that I have an attitude as that's not the case. Just imagine a very pleasant tone in your head when you read my posts, that might help.
Seriously, though, I think it's important to be honest and to the point. With all due respect, I thought your analysis was awful. I'm sorry if you feel that has attitude or is meant to offend you. I don't think you are awful, but that analysis was. I'll elaborate in a bit.
But on to the discussion. If you recall the poster who I was directing this to said:
They already own. They bought in 2010. They are not deciding to buy direct vs. resale.
Fair point. I was using current prices, which does skew the numbers a bit. So modify the point cost to $2.40 instead of $3.50 and plug that into your equations. It makes the cruise slightly less expensive than paying cash but more expensive than renting the points and paying cash.
I don't see how it is an awful breakdown - maybe you could elaborate? I understand that the purchase price of the BLT points is ignored, but the poster already bought in. That cost is a sunk cost. They already have the points. The question is now: how do you use them? My analysis simply and only was on that point - how do you use them?
This is your fatal flaw, both from a logical and accounting perspective. Yes, the money has been paid up front, but it has been paid. It cannot be ignored. I am reluctant to use a car analogy here because they frequently do not directly apply, but I believe this one does. Let's say you go buy a new car for $20,000. You pay cash. Would you then say that your transportation expenses for the next five years are only the costs of gas and insurance? That makes no sense. There is another cost...the cost of the car. The fact that you paid for it up front does not diminish the fact that it cost you money.
Even the DVC salespeople attribute a cost per point in addition to maintenance fees when comparing DVC to other options. If they didn't they would be fined for misrepresentation...because that's what it is.
It does not "make the cruise more expense" by accounting for the up-front purchase price of the points, according to my calculations. Let's allocate the up-front costs across the entire lifetime of the membership? Let say BLT was purchased at $120, this means it is an extra cost to them of $2.4 per point per year. That would change the numbers slightly to show that:
Booking the cruise with cash: same $3,034.24
Booking the cruise on points: now $2,951.60 ("saved" $82.64 in cash flow from cash price)
Booking the cruise with cash after renting points: now $1,336.84 ("saved" $1,697.40 in cash flow from cash price)
So including the up-front cost of the points and renting the cruise is not "cash flow positive" but still cheaper than paying the cash price of the cruise.
Did I miss something here? Can you explain the math where it is more expensive to use points than to pay the cash price?
Please see my point above about using $165 purchase price instead of $120. In this analysis you have accounted for the cost of the points, which makes it a much stronger analysis.
And I do not know if you noticed but I put the word "free" in quotes because I was trying to imply that it wasn't actually "free" but rather cash flow positive. Hence the quotes.
I noticed. Still misleading.
Instead, why don't you offer your advice on the analysis - maybe that would be more helpful to other members rather than criticizing others.
I thought I did, but perhaps not. Hopefully I cleared that up. I'm sorry that you don't like my criticism. I try to be respectful at all times, especially when I disagree with someone. I would suggest that my criticism is more helpful to other members, because it helps paint a clearer picture of how these things really work. I think it's important that the members of the DIS strive for accuracy and reliability in our content, and that we should hold each other accountable, just as you did to me when I erroneously used a $165 purchase price instead of $120. I caused confusion by making that error.
You are right that I did not put into the math equation how much the original point purchase factors in. But I think at the end of the day my post tried to convey the message that (a) using your points for a cruise isn't the best value for your points and (b) you are better off renting your points and using the cash you get to pay for the cruise. Trying to put some actual numbers to the math so it is easier to see for some people. Would you not agree that this proposition is what most people advocate here when someone asks about using their points to go on a cruise? So maybe you have a problem with a piece of the analysis, but do you disagree with the premise?
For the most part I agree with the premise. From a straight financial perspective, your best bet is to rent out the points and pay cash for the cruise. From a convenience perspective, it's a toss up. Some people view renting as a huge inconvenience, others don't like the rigidity that comes with booking a cruise on points. While I don't think it's a good decision (financial or otherwise) to buy DVC predominantly for cruising, I think the occasional cruise using DVC points isn't the worst thing in the world, even if it's not maximizing financial value. All work and no play does indeed make Jack a dull boy.