Who has only purchased direct and why?

[JimMIA]

Most here that preach resale own direct points too.

I don't know about "most," but many do. But, as I said above, I think you have to look at WHEN people purchased.

When I purchased direct in 2005, I think I paid about the same as SSR resale and only $3-4 more than OKW resale. And, I only bought 120 points and got 100 points free. So at that time, the promotion was actually attractive.

Today, DVC is charging $130 per point for SSR, and the listing prices at TTS seem to be at or just below $70 for resales.

There is a bit of difference between $4 per point in 2005 and $60 per point today.

I find value in the other options avalable even if its "not a good use of points ".

I've never liked the terminology "...not a good use of points." How do I know what is a "good" use of YOUR points for YOUR family? I don't.

A better terminology is "not as much value for your points." That's a different concept, because we can look at the total cost of the points (acquisition cost + dues), get a cost for the points used, and evaluate whether better value could have been gotten some other way.

With the items that are restricted to resale buyers,however, I think we need to take it one step further. I think the proper place to start is the CASH price of the options being considered. If you look objectively at pricing for DCL or ADB, for example, I think you will conclude that the CASH prices are ridiculously overpriced to begin with. Would you really pay those cash prices? I certainly would not!

The real question here is the same as considering DDP -- the Disney prices are so inflated to start with that you really have to go back to square one and rethink the whole idea of doing it in the first place.

That's why I personally think the resale "restrictions" are a blessing in disguise for DVC owners. They focus our attention on the REAL benefits of DVC -- which are using points at WDW resorts.

I also believe there is quite a bit of savings in buying DVC .

My experience has not been that. My experience has been that DVC cost me more...but the quality of my family's vacations was enhanced.

You don't see a lot of pro direct cause it is quite difficult to defend that around here .

It's not because a direct purchase is difficult to defend. It's because a direct purchase is impossible to defend using a financial argument. The numbers simply don't lie, and they don't work.

There are reasons for purchasing direct, but they are not cost/benefit reasons. People who know about resale buy direct because:

• They want (or need) to finance
• Or, they want to buy something they can't get in the resale market.

 

[nd43]

It's not because a direct purchase is difficult to defend. It's because a direct purchase is impossible to defend using a financial argument. The numbers simply don't lie, and they don't work.

That might be too general of a statement. VGF direct @ $150 per point still works financially when you consider the cash cost of these villas (which are the highest of any villas in the WDW DVC system). So, if you want to stay at the GF, and buy direct at $150, the math to calculate your savings over paying cash and when you will "break even" works much like the other resorts.

For instance, the cash cost for our 2 bedroom villa at Christmas was going to be $12,000 for our stay. It cost 650 points. Clearly, that is a large savings over cash. Over time, it would calc out much like other resorts with lower buy in costs. Sure, you can come up with a strategy to recoup quicker using cheaper points to get the same room, but that is different then saying it will never work.

 

[JimMIA]

For instance, the cash cost for our 2 bedroom villa at Christmas was going to be $12,000 for our stay. It cost 650 points. Clearly, that is a large savings over cash.

Yes, that is a perfectly valid comparison...IF you would actually pay $12,000. If not, it's just a meaningless number that a timeshare salesman can use to mislead you.

 

[ELMC]

That might be too general of a statement. VGF direct @ $150 per point still works financially when you consider the cash cost of these villas (which are the highest of any villas in the WDW DVC system). So, if you want to stay at the GF, and buy direct at $150, the math to calculate your savings over paying cash and when you will "break even" works much like the other resorts.

For instance, the cash cost for our 2 bedroom villa at Christmas was going to be $12,000 for our stay. It cost 650 points. Clearly, that is a large savings over cash. Over time, it would calc out much like other resorts with lower buy in costs. Sure, you can come up with a strategy to recoup quicker using cheaper points to get the same room, but that is different then saying it will never work.

There is a gas station down the street from me that is charging $5.80 a gallon. To put it in perspective, every other gas station in the three surrounding towns are between $3.95 and $4.10. So you could say that if I paid $5.00 a gallon I would be saving 80 cents a gallon. But that is ignoring the fact that the $5.80 price is completely over inflated.

But bringing it back to your example, you made a common mistake in your analysis. Yes, you are saving roughly $4,000 on this stay by purchasing DVC. But what you fail to mention is that you need a 325 point contract in order to make this stay happen (assuming using two year's worth of points). So in order to save $4,000 you had to spend $48,750. So even though you are "saving" money, you are still very in the red by choosing this approach.

 

[nd43]

Yes, that is a perfectly valid comparison...IF you would actually pay $12,000. If not, it's just a meaningless number that a timeshare salesman can use to mislead you.

I think you are selling this a little short. $12,000 is the real rate that Disney is charging and taking reservations for that room today. So, it really is not meaningless and not made up. If no one paid that rate, your point would be valid. However, people are paying that rate (which happens to be $6,000 less then a similar 2 bedroom suite at GF for the same week so the people paying cash feel they are saving money over the comparable suite when they only have to pay $12,000 for the room.). GF is not cheap at Christmas.

I assure you, it will be sold out at Christmas. In fact, people will be turned away who want to pay this rate and cannot get the room.

So, saying you saved that money over the equivalent cash reservation is completely acceptable and better then most timeshares that use rates never actually paid by the public. This is not just a "made up" number by a sales rep. It is a real rate being paid by real people. However, as a member, you will have the equivalent room at a much lower cost. It is how all the math works (resale or direct).

 

[JimMIA]

I think you are selling this a little short. $12,000 is the real rate that Disney is charging and taking reservations for that room today. So, it really is not meaningless and not made up. If no one paid that rate, your point would be valid. However, people are paying that rate (which happens to be $6,000 less then a similar 2 bedroom suite at GF for the same week so the people paying cash feel they are saving money over the comparable suite when they only have to pay $12,000 for the room.). GF is not cheap at Christmas.

I assure you, it will be sold out at Christmas. In fact, people will be turned away who want to pay this rate and cannot get the room.

So, saying you saved that money over the equivalent cash reservation is completely acceptable and better then most timeshares that use rates never actually paid by the public. This is not just a "made up" number by a sales rep. It is a real rate being paid by real people. However, as a member, you will have the equivalent room at a much lower cost. It is how all the math works (resale or direct).

Naw. I didn't say it was bogus or made up. I said it was irrelevant unless YOU were willing to pay that price. I am not.

I could tell you truthfully that you can get a 2 BR deluxe at Wydham Bonnet Creek for less than $1,000 for a full week. You would "save" $11,000! That's a fact. Is it relevant here? No. You don't want to stay at WBC, you want to stay onsite.

What somebody else would pay is irrelevant if I am considering an expense for my family. The only appropriate prices to consider are what MY family would pay cash vs. what MY family would pay for DVC.

(see ELMC's gas example above).

 

[nd43]

But bringing it back to your example, you made a common mistake in your analysis. Yes, you are saving roughly $4,000 on this stay by purchasing DVC. But what you fail to mention is that you need a 325 point contract in order to make this stay happen (assuming using two year's worth of points). So in order to save $4,000 you had to spend $48,750. So even though you are "saving" money, you are still very in the red by choosing this approach.

Ok, this one does not make much sense to me. Who purchases DVC and expects the entire purchase to be made up in the first reservation? Of course you are going to need to repeat these savings over time to eventually break even and then start saving money.

In this case, I am paying roughly $3,500 in maintenance for the 650 points it cost me for this reservation. That means I paid about $8,500 less this year for the equivalent cash price of this room. You can apply that $8,500 against your initial purchase price (plus whatever carrying costs, time value of money, etc.) you want to add. However, over time, if this delta persists, you will break even and eventually start saving money. If the delta between the maintenance cost and the cash cost of the room got closer, you could end up running out of time before your contract expired. That is when you can declare the math will never work. However, at the current delta, and over 50 years left on the contract, there is plenty of time to make the financials work in your favor at VGF.

In fact, given the relatively high cost of VGF cash rooms, I believe the time to break even at $150 per point will not be that much different then other resorts. So, that is why I stated it was too general to proclaim no direct purchase at this time can financially work.

Saying "we'll, you would never pay that cash price" is just silly. It is the proven cash value of the room as shown by others paying it. The fact that I chose to save money does not mean I cannot count the savings. That is twisted logic. I am getting the equivalent room for less, which is why I purchased a timeshare, it is how every spreadsheet works. A lot of DVC members would not pay the cash rate for their rooms, it does not disqualify all savings math. It is why they purchased in the first place. To get the nicer room at a price they could afford. It is no different at the VGF. Just because the rooms cost more, you cannot suddenly claim the savings are not real. In fact, I would argue you are getting even a better value for the higher cost resort because the rooms will be in high cash demand given the small size and you are still getting the room at the lower price. Unlike SSR or the bigger resorts which often have an over supply, heavier discounting, and sometimes are still left with open rooms. What is the value of that savings when the cash price, even discounted, could not sell out the resort? I think VGF will be a consistent sellout due to the high cash demand for the left over rooms. It is not "just another gas station" selling the same thing. It is the flagship resort at the largest tourist attraction in the world. People already pay crazy money every year to be there.

 

[iluvthsgam]

I think you are selling this a little short. $12,000 is the real rate that Disney is charging and taking reservations for that room today. So, it really is not meaningless and not made up. If no one paid that rate, your point would be valid. However, people are paying that rate (which happens to be $6,000 less then a similar 2 bedroom suite at GF for the same week so the people paying cash feel they are saving money over the comparable suite when they only have to pay $12,000 for the room.). GF is not cheap at Christmas.

I assure you, it will be sold out at Christmas. In fact, people will be turned away who want to pay this rate and cannot get the room.

So, saying you saved that money over the equivalent cash reservation is completely acceptable and better then most timeshares that use rates never actually paid by the public. This is not just a "made up" number by a sales rep. It is a real rate being paid by real people. However, as a member, you will have the equivalent room at a much lower cost. It is how all the math works (resale or direct).

Saying "we'll, you would never pay that cash price" is just silly. It is the proven cash value of the room as shown by others paying it. The fact that I chose to save money does not mean I cannot count the savings. That is twisted logic. I am getting the equivalent room for less, which is why I purchased a timeshare, it is how every spreadsheet works. A lot of DVC members would not pay the cash rate for their rooms, it does not disqualify all savings math. It is why they purchased in the first place. To get the nicer room at a price they could afford. It is no different at the VGF. Just because the rooms cost more, you cannot suddenly claim the savings are not real. In fact, I would argue you are getting even a better value for the higher cost resort because the rooms will be in high cash demand given the small size and you are still getting the room at the lower price. Unlike SSR or the bigger resorts which often have an over supply, heavier discounting, and sometimes are still left with open rooms. What is the value of that savings when the cash price, even discounted, could not sell out the resort? I think VGF will be a consistent sellout due to the high cash demand for the left over rooms. It is not "just another gas station" selling the same thing. It is the flagship resort at the largest tourist attraction in the world. People already pay crazy money every year to be there.

As Jim said above it only matters to your equation if YOU would pay that cost. Example, I collect airline miles and use them on premium cabin flights. Last summer my wife and I flew first class from NY->Brussels->Florence->Paris->NY. Each ticket had a retail cost of about $16,000, each. Can I say that by using miles I "saved" $32,000. Hell no! I would never spend $32,000 on those flights. You have to come up with a reasonable number of what you would pay for those flights. That is how much you saved.

If you are trying to calculate what buying DVC saves YOU - you have to go on what you previously were spending on accommodations at Disney. If you were previously spending $12,000 at the GF, then by all means, you can say you saved the difference the points cost from the $12,000. If you look at other "math" threads you will see people argue whether to take the rack rate or some discounted rate - this is because most people don't pay the rack rate, they always paid a discounted rate, so the comparison wasn't fair.

If you want to say that by buying into DVC you are saving $12,000 staying at VGF (but never spent or would have spent $12,000 for that room - regardless if other people will) than go ahead if it makes you feel better. But it is not really an accurate measure of your savings.

 

[iluvthsgam]

Now, don't get me wrong, it sure is fun to say and think - hey I just got this $12,000 room for only $3,400 worth of points. But it really isn't accurate to say that you "saved" $8,600.

I love booking a first class international flight that normally would cost $15,000-$20,000 - but I don't think that I "saved" that money by using miles. I save what I would have reasonably spent on that flight. But it sure is fun to sit there knowing what everyone else paid...

 

[BestDadEver]

A better terminology is "not as much value for your points." That's a different concept, because we can look at the total cost of the points (acquisition cost + dues), get a cost for the points used, and evaluate whether better value could have been gotten some other way.

I used that terminology as most people do here . I have never used it cause I don't agree with it .

There are reasons for purchasing direct, but they are not cost/benefit reasons. People who know about resale buy direct because:

• They want (or need) to finance
• Or, they want to buy something they can't get in the resale market.

These aren't reason I purchased direct . Yes I financed but I could have easily gotten a personal loan to finance a resale contract .

For me its not all about the money I guess that is why i find value in the direct purchase . Obviously you will save a substantial amount of money buying resale . I stated above my reasons I purchased direct .

 

[nd43]

As Jim said above it only matters to your equation if YOU would pay that cost. Example, I collect airline miles and use them on premium cabin flights. Last summer my wife and I flew first class from NY->Brussels->Florence->Paris->NY. Each ticket had a retail cost of about $16,000, each. Can I say that by using miles I "saved" $32,000. Hell no! I would never spend $32,000 on those flights. You have to come up with a reasonable number of what you would pay for those flights. That is how much you saved.

If you are trying to calculate what buying DVC saves YOU - you have to go on what you previously were spending on accommodations at Disney. If you were previously spending $12,000 at the GF, then by all means, you can say you saved the difference the points cost from the $12,000. If you look at other "math" threads you will see people argue whether to take the rack rate or some discounted rate - this is because most people don't pay the rack rate, they always paid a discounted rate, so the comparison wasn't fair.

If you want to say that by buying into DVC you are saving $12,000 staying at VGF (but never spent or would have spent $12,000 for that room - regardless if other people will) than go ahead if it makes you feel better. But it is not really an accurate measure of your savings.

You guys are pretty funny. So, in your world, the market never determines the "value" of an item, only you do. So, given this, the only time you could ever "save" money is when you personally decide you would spend more, but do not.

I think that is a fair summary of your points. You can only "save" money you would be willing to spend in the first place. Everything else is a fantasy.

Ok, how about the person that says "I am willing to spend this amount on vacations but I want the nicest vacations for that amount?"

How do they ever calculate a value given they already said they are only willing to spend XX amount on vacations? In your world, they could never save a dollar because they are spending what they stated was their full budget already on vacations. That means they were not willing to spend more, and therefore, cannot save money.

Lets say that same person got a lousy room, off site, next to the highway for that amount. Another person got to stay at a flagship resort on premise for the same cost. In your world, they both saved nothing because they both spent their limit. In my world, given the market value of those results, the second person got a lot more value for their dollar. How much more value? Well, I would look at the delta between what they paid and what others were willing to pay for the same experience. That delta, to me, represents value.

In your world, you could never calculate that value. I think that is silly for someone trying to construct the value of a timeshare contract. For most people, staying at a nicer place for less money is the core of the value. They are spending their entire vacation budget, but they are getting more for it. I can measure that value by comparing the spread between what they paid for that experience and what others paid.

 

[JimMIA]

I think the best number to use when making these comparisons is not what you might hypothetically pay -- it's what you actually have paid historically for accommodations on WDW trips.

If that's Disney Deluxe concierge at rack rate, your financial justification gymnastics will be easy. If you have historically stayed offsite at Motel 6, you'll have to stretch a little.

But your historical expenditures are your best indicator. You actually HAVE paid those prices, and presumably would be willing to pay them again in the future.

That's the correct number to compare to the cost of DVC...IF you are trying to justify the expenditure or avenue of purchase financially. There are other ways to justify a purchase or method of purchase.

 

[ELMC]

Ok, this one does not make much sense to me. Who purchases DVC and expects the entire purchase to be made up in the first reservation? Of course you are going to need to repeat these savings over time to eventually break even and then start saving money.

In this case, I am paying roughly $3,500 in maintenance for the 650 points it cost me for this reservation. That means I paid about $8,500 less this year for the equivalent cash price of this room. You can apply that $8,500 against your initial purchase price (plus whatever carrying costs, time value of money, etc.) you want to add. However, over time, if this delta persists, you will break even and eventually start saving money. If the delta between the maintenance cost and the cash cost of the room got closer, you could end up running out of time before your contract expired. That is when you can declare the math will never work. However, at the current delta, and over 50 years left on the contract, there is plenty of time to make the financials work in your favor at VGF.

In fact, given the relatively high cost of VGF cash rooms, I believe the time to break even at $150 per point will not be that much different then other resorts. So, that is why I stated it was too general to proclaim no direct purchase at this time can financially work.

Saying "we'll, you would never pay that cash price" is just silly. It is the proven cash value of the room as shown by others paying it. The fact that I chose to save money does not mean I cannot count the savings. That is twisted logic. I am getting the equivalent room for less, which is why I purchased a timeshare, it is how every spreadsheet works. A lot of DVC members would not pay the cash rate for their rooms, it does not disqualify all savings math. It is why they purchased in the first place. To get the nicer room at a price they could afford. It is no different at the VGF. Just because the rooms cost more, you cannot suddenly claim the savings are not real. In fact, I would argue you are getting even a better value for the higher cost resort because the rooms will be in high cash demand given the small size and you are still getting the room at the lower price. Unlike SSR or the bigger resorts which often have an over supply, heavier discounting, and sometimes are still left with open rooms. What is the value of that savings when the cash price, even discounted, could not sell out the resort? I think VGF will be a consistent sellout due to the high cash demand for the left over rooms. It is not "just another gas station" selling the same thing. It is the flagship resort at the largest tourist attraction in the world. People already pay crazy money every year to be there.

The point I'm trying to make is that paying $12,000 for that room is, quite frankly, insane, just as paying $5.80 for a gallon of gas is insane in light of the other options. Do people do it? Well I see cars there, so I guess they do. And as you stated, those rooms get booked, so people must be paying those rates. However, using that as your basis for comparison does not make you a wise saver of money, it makes you insincere if you wouldn't actually pay that rate and very loose with your money if you would. Choosing the worst possible option and using that as a justification for savings is a little disingenuous. You yourself said that a similar room at the GF was available for half the price. Also, renting points at $14 a piece would get you that room for $9,100.

So yes, I suppose that you are saving a bundle as compared to the most inefficient, costly, over the top expensive way to possibly stay at Disney. So I will concede the point that buying direct and financing is less wasteful than paying full rack rate. But is that really an honest (and valuable) comparison?

 

[Goofy DVC]

Our first two contracts in 1993 were direct. Our next two were resale and then in 2010 we bought another small BCV contract direct because we could not find one that small in our UY resale. I would also add that Disney's closing costs are significantly less than resale companies. This especially affects the total cost of small contracts when comparing the two.

 

[ELMC]

For me its not all about the money ...

One thing I've learned over time is that whenever someone says it's not about the money, it's about one thing...the money.

 

[nd43]

I think the best number to use when making these comparisons is not what you might hypothetically pay -- it's what you actually have paid historically for accommodations on WDW trips.

If that's Disney Deluxe concierge at rack rate, your financial justification gymnastics will be easy. If you have historically stayed offsite at Motel 6, you'll have to stretch a little.

But your historical expenditures are your best indicator. You actually HAVE paid those prices, and presumably would be willing to pay them again in the future.

That's the correct number to compare to the cost of DVC...IF you are trying to justify the expenditure or avenue of purchase financially. There are other ways to justify a purchase or method of purchase.

I think, in the end, it is the difference between how much money you "saved" by not spending what you otherwise would, and how much "value" you got by spending the amount you did and what quality of vacation you got in return.

I think most timeshares represent "value" by providing nicer accommodations at a lower cost. I am not sure many offer "savings" by simply allowing you to spend less money then you otherwise would on vacation. It is about maximizing the value of your vacations dollars vs. saving hard vacation dollars.

Calculating that value of dollars by comparing my cost to market cost and calling it "savings" I think spun this in different directions for different people. To me, it was always about getting the best value for my vacation dollars, not spending less vacation dollars.

 

[ELMC]

You guys are pretty funny. So, in your world, the market never determines the "value" of an item, only you do. So, given this, the only time you could ever "save" money is when you personally decide you would spend more, but do not.

I think that is a fair summary of your points. You can only "save" money you would be willing to spend in the first place. Everything else is a fantasy.

Ok, how about the person that says "I am willing to spend this amount on vacations but I want the nicest vacations for that amount?"

How do they ever calculate a value given they already said they are only willing to spend XX amount on vacations? In your world, they could never save a dollar because they are spending what they stated was their full budget already on vacations. That means they were not willing to spend more, and therefore, cannot save money.

Lets say that same person got a lousy room, off site, next to the highway for that amount. Another person got to stay at a flagship resort on premise for the same cost. In your world, they both saved nothing because they both spent their limit. In my world, given the market value of those results, the second person got a lot more value for their dollar. How much more value? Well, I would look at the delta between what they paid and what others were willing to pay for the same experience. That delta, to me, represents value.

In your world, you could never calculate that value. I think that is silly for someone trying to construct the value of a timeshare contract. For most people, staying at a nicer place for less money is the core of the value. They are spending their entire vacation budget, but they are getting more for it. I can measure that value by comparing the spread between what they paid for that experience and what others paid.

Are you familiar with the men's clothing store Jos A. Bank? They are the kings of your logic, just in a different marketplace. They average suit at Jos A. Bank is $895. However, despite the price tag, it's not an $895 suit. The reason for this is because more than half of the year they run sales. Sometimes it's buy one, get one free. Sometimes it's buy one, get two free. Sometimes it's even better than that. My point is, THAT is what determines the market price for those suits, not the fact that they are tagged $895. Do people pay full price for one of those suits? I'm sure they do. But I bet they also feel duped once they turn on their television and see that they could have gotten an extra suit, two shirts and two ties for the same price.

My point is this...just because Jos A. Bank says that their suit is worth $895 does not make it so. Just because Disney tells you that their room is worth $12,000 does not make it so. There are just too many sales (room discounts, AP discounts, PIN codes, bounceback offers, DVC ownership, DVC rental, booking similar onsite non DVC rooms) for this to be a valid number, regardless of whether or not you have paid it in the past...which I don't recall your saying that you have.

 

[nd43]

The point I'm trying to make is that paying $12,000 for that room is, quite frankly, insane, just as paying $5.80 for a gallon of gas is insane in light of the other options. Do people do it? Well I see cars there, so I guess they do. And as you stated, those rooms get booked, so people must be paying those rates. However, using that as your basis for comparison does not make you a wise saver of money, it makes you insincere if you wouldn't actually pay that rate and very loose with your money if you would. Choosing the worst possible option and using that as a justification for savings is a little disingenuous. You yourself said that a similar room at the GF was available for half the price. Also, renting points at $14 a piece would get you that room for $9,100.

So yes, I suppose that you are saving a bundle as compared to the most inefficient, costly, over the top expensive way to possibly stay at Disney. So I will concede the point that buying direct and financing is less wasteful than paying full rack rate. But is that really an honest (and valuable) comparison?

Just to clarify, the 2 bedroom suite at GF is $6,000 more. Meaning, it costs $18,000 for those same 6 days. People "only" spending $12,000 will perceive that as more cost effective then the suite.

These are not "crazy", only one person ever, actually paid these rates. It is common for people to pay this to stay at the GF over Christmas in a suite, etc. This is the high end spot for WDW at the busiest time of the year. GF has consistently had the highest room rates and occupancy rates. Clearly, it is a high demand hotel and people all over the world are willing to pay these rates consistently year after year.

It really is a fair comparison when determining "value" (perhaps not savings). You might not value it like this but the market does.

 

[JWG]

So after all of that, using VGF isn't really fair. I could make the argument of purchasing DVC direct versus annual cash reservations on any DVC resort, none of which has to do with direct vs. resale.

VGF falls into the "not available via resale" category. Many people buy direct who can't get what they want resale (such as new properties).

We'll see when and at what price VGF hit the resale market. BLT was on the resale market within about 18 months if I remember correctly.

 

[ELMC]

Just to clarify, the 2 bedroom suite at GF is $6,000 more. Meaning, it costs $18,000 for those same 6 days. People "only" spending $12,000 will perceive that as more cost effective then the suite.

These are not "crazy", only one person ever, actually paid these rates. It is common for people to pay this to stay at the GF over Christmas in a suite, etc. This is the high end spot for WDW at the busiest time of the year. GF has consistently had the highest room rates and occupancy rates. Clearly, it is a high demand hotel and people all over the world are willing to pay these rates consistently year after year.

It really is a fair comparison when determining "value" (perhaps not savings). You might not value it like this but the market does.

Thank you for clarifying, I did misread that. And I know that I got a bit judgmental in my last post by referring to something as "insane". Typically I try not to make judgments, but in this case I couldn't help myself. Given the fact that this room could be booked for 650 DVC points, I think that the best comparison of savings is DVC vs. itself. The cost (however you calculate it) of those 650 points should be the basis for comparison, not some overly inflated rack rate that an incredibly small percentage of the population will actually pay.

My point is that people should feel comfortable saying that they bought VGF direct to book these kinds of stays because it was the most cost effective means of doing so that they could reliably find. You don't need to compare it to some ridiculous rack rate in order to make it a good deal. It's a good deal because you want to stay in that room and that room is 650 points, and buying 650 points is how you are able to do so.