- Jan 11, 2017
this is a solid point. We save/invest fairly heavily and did so before/during/after purchasing DVC. The cash used to buy our contract was considered expendable, did not lessen our saving/investment contributions, and we almost definitely would have spent it on something else if we hadn’t purchased DVC.So is buying a car, and now, since you have not bought DVC, that little upgrade to the leather interior (or whatever) is now something for which you may pay, since perhaps you do not have to tighten your belt up as much.
Now you got a 1000$ option that you would not have gotten had you bought DVC. Yet this does not get deducted in the analysis. People are still taking the purchase price of a DVC contract, and increasing it by some factor representing ROI. And thats fine. My point is, in many cases, SOME of that principal is likely to get spend in another way. No analysis seems to allow for that.
Even so, knowing how the numbers would play out helps as even if the cash is expendable, no one wants to light it on fire. For example, at least purchasing DVC is a more financially sane decision than purchasing a duct-taped banana.