|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Apr 8, 2020 16:22:15 GMT
Not sure what to make of these figures, as stated 399 is 1.7% of all lenders therefore there are 23,471 lenders. AC states Total votes cast = 4658 so from AC figures only around 20% voted, good job it was not this low on Brexit some might say only only 18% of voters voted for this. When adding in votes weighted on amount invested this will be around 7.5%.
Sorry, but no idea what point you are trying to make. Your extrapolation from 399/1.7% = 23k+ lenders is fair enough. However a huge tranche of those 23k are likely minimally invested (and certainly chose not to vote of their own free will).
But regardless, what matters is the weighted vote. What are you driving at with your "7.5%" number ?
Calculated by vote and weighted by size of investment:
Excluding those who did not vote: average of For = 91%, Against = 9%
Including those who did not vote as 'for’: average of For = 96%, Against = 4%
Unless I am missing something, this means the weighted number that voted is about 44.4%. So no idea what your 7.5% is mean to represent nor its significance. It should also be said that is a higher "turnout" then is typical on a single loan vote. EDIT: And which in turn means that the active vote for A was about 40.4%, not counting the absentations, many of which may have been conscious that abstention = A.
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71 
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Apr 8, 2020 16:29:24 GMT
Can I point at the elephant in the room? 4658 + 6.3% of investors or about 5000 participated in the vote which was compulsory one, right? But according to AC website, AC has 15,194 investors in QAA. As we all have at least a penny in QAA and we are counted as investors there for that reason so I can accept, that's the total number of investors in AC. So, my question is, where are those missing ten thousand souls? Do they exist and if they do, why didn't they participate in the vote, Stuart?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 8, 2020 16:33:11 GMT
Can I point at the elephant in the room? 4658 + 6.3% of investors or about 5000 participated in the vote which was compulsory one, right? But according to AC website, AC has 15,194 investors in QAA. As we all have at least a penny in QAA and we are counted as investors there for that reason, I can accept that's the total number of investors in AC. So, my question is, where are those missing ten thousand souls? Do they exist and if they do, why didn't they participate in the vote, Stuart? You had to vote on the first night, but this was a bug. After that it was reverted, being most investors likely werent' logging in at like 8PM that night I guess some skipped the vote/ignored it? More likely I think alot of those accounts may be zombie accounts, accounts with only a few default loans or extremely small trapped investments in the old accounts. The site has been around since 2013 so I imagine alot of such accounts exist You have of course passive investors who may not even be aware that there was a vote ect. Seems like a decent turnout from active investors reguardless
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 8, 2020 16:35:23 GMT
Not sure what to make of these figures, as stated 399 is 1.7% of all lenders therefore there are 23,471 lenders. AC states Total votes cast = 4658 so from AC figures only around 20% voted, good job it was not this low on Brexit some might say only only 18% of voters voted for this. When adding in votes weighted on amount invested this will be around 7.5%.
Sorry, but no idea what point you are trying to make. Your extrapolation from 399/1.7% = 23k+ lenders is fair enough. However a huge tranche of those 23k are likely minimally invested (and certainly chose not to vote of their own free will).
But regardless, what matters is the weighted vote. What are you driving at with your "7.5%" number ?
Calculated by vote and weighted by size of investment:
Excluding those who did not vote: average of For = 91%, Against = 9%
Including those who did not vote as 'for’: average of For = 96%, Against = 4%
Unless I am missing something, this means the weighted number that voted is about 44.4%. So no idea what your 7.5% is mean to represent nor its significance. It should also be said that is a higher "turnout" then is typical on a single loan vote. I don't know how to access the details but as I remember it when votes were taken before the current system it was normal for the not voted to be the greatest proportion of total votes. This vote was sent by email to ALL and included AA holders too.. It clearly stated that no vote was a yes vote. On the how are you voting here the results were 84.1% yes and 15.9% no. Where ever you look the yes have it.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 8, 2020 16:38:46 GMT
Not sure what to make of these figures, as stated 399 is 1.7% of all lenders therefore there are 23,471 lenders. AC states Total votes cast = 4658 so from AC figures only around 20% voted, good job it was not this low on Brexit some might say only only 18% of voters voted for this. When adding in votes weighted on amount invested this will be around 7.5%.
Sorry, but no idea what point you are trying to make. Your extrapolation from 399/1.7% = 23k+ lenders is fair enough. However a huge tranche of those 23k are likely minimally invested (and certainly chose not to vote of their own free will).
But regardless, what matters is the weighted vote. What are you driving at with your "7.5%" number ?
Calculated by vote and weighted by size of investment:
Excluding those who did not vote: average of For = 91%, Against = 9%
Including those who did not vote as 'for’: average of For = 96%, Against = 4%
Unless I am missing something, this means the weighted number that voted is about 44.4%. So no idea what your 7.5% is mean to represent nor its significance. It should also be said that is a higher "turnout" then is typical on a single loan vote. EDIT: And which in turn means that the active vote for A was about 40.4%, not counting the absentations, many of which may have been conscious that abstention = A.
Quite simple from AC own figures 399/1.7 = 23K lenders. From AC Total votes for forbearance = 4259 therfore only 18% voted for A.
From AC
Calculated by number of people voting
Including those who did not vote as ‘for’: For = 98.3%, Against = 1.7%
Calculated by vote and weighted by size of investment
Including those who did not vote as 'for’: average of For = 96%, Against = 4%
So add in weighting this gives 1,7 to 4, ratio i.e. 0.425
18 * 0.425 =approx 7.5%
Some are saying that the non votes are from zombie lenders but when we look at the weighted figures it tells a different storey.
Please AC give us all the numbers, it will prevent the arguments about the figures in this an other areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Apr 8, 2020 17:03:11 GMT
Anyone can string a set of numbers together. The question was: what is your 7.5% number intended to actually represent ?
You appear to be trying to imply that only 7.5% of the weighted-by-investment lender base voted for A. But unless I'm having a senior moment - and I can't rule that out - that doesn't pass a basic sense check, let alone the maths.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Apr 8, 2020 17:10:50 GMT
Just for clarity
'B' Actually won the vote
Anyone who voted 'A' was being mind controlled by illegal 5g masts, so their votes should be discarded.
Assetz misread the figures obviously
This will all have to be sorted out in court
By the way, the vote was just a formality, 3 months forbearance is the going rate under Government instruction
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Apr 8, 2020 17:12:20 GMT
Anyone can string a set of numbers together. The question was: what is your 7.5% number intended to actually represent ?
You appear to be trying to imply that only 7.5% of the weighted-by-investment lender base voted for A. But unless I'm having a senior moment - and I can't rule that out - that doesn't pass a basic sense check, let alone the maths.
I rarely quote myself but...and at the risk of having stunningly missed the obvious and thereby making an idiot of myself, putting this into simples:
The number who voted against - IN WEIGHTED TERMS - was 9 % of those who voted. That number does not change. Its a static. After factoring in all non-votes (weighted) as FOR's, that drops to 4%. QED the number who actually voted, by weight is 44% of the total. Of those, 91% voted For. QED about 40.4% of the WEIGHTED INVESTOR BASE voted "A".
What does your 7.5% represent ?
[edit: I'll now let myself be ripped apart by someone because I've missed an obvious]
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Apr 8, 2020 17:13:27 GMT
By the way, the vote was just a formality, 3 months forbearance is the going rate under Government instruction Quite.
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Apr 8, 2020 17:15:01 GMT
Forget all this numbers malarkey. At the appropriate time, I think it would be churlish of us not to allow AC to propose a motion to borrowers affording them the chance to offer a BIG THANK YOU to lenders for their forbearance vote. Who's with me?  |
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 8, 2020 17:21:27 GMT
Anyone can string a set of numbers together. The question was: what is your 7.5% number intended to actually represent ?
You appear to be trying to imply that only 7.5% of the weighted-by-investment lender base voted for A. But unless I'm having a senior moment - and I can't rule that out - that doesn't pass a basic sense check, let alone the maths.
Not sure what else to say but the number strung together are supplied by AC, if AC could please give us all the numbers i.e.
Total number of Lenders eligible to vote
Total funds held by eligible voters
Funds with eligible voters that voted A
Funds with eligible voters that voted B
However it may not portray the same story as as AC is doing now
I am not sure are having a senior moment without the full figures from AC it is not very clear, all we can do is used the number they supply.
No one has any idea why so few people voted, for all we know a lot of people did not know about the vote, they have many other things on their mind at present.
There is a good argument if the total vote is lower than a certain percentage it is not meaningful, also there is also an argument that someone who did not vote may well be happy with the status quo so in effect voted for no change to current procedures.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 8, 2020 17:25:03 GMT
So it begins, the vote for A won, but the B's will never let it go.  I don't think anyone is suggesting A didn't win. It's just that the thread title is grossly misleading, given that the overwhelming majority of investors didn't vote.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 8, 2020 17:32:49 GMT
Starting from "Calculated by vote and weighted by size of investment
Excluding those who did not vote: average of For = 91% , Against = 9%
Including those who did not vote as 'for’: average of For = 96%, Against = 4%"
Assume those who voted Option B had a total of £N invested, then -from "Including those who did not vote as 'for’: average of For = 96%, Against = 4%" all lenders have a total of £25N invested
-from "Excluding those who did not vote: average of For = 91% , Against = 9%" we see Option A voters had a total of £(91/9)N invested, i.e. £10.11N.
By weight of investment, Option A votes had 100*£10.11N/£25N percent, i.e. 40.44% of the weighted vote
Edit: crossed with bracknellboy who said earlier - in a more elegant post - "QED the number who actually voted, by weight is 44% of the total. Of those, 91% voted For. QED about 40.4% of the WEIGHTED INVESTOR BASE voted "A"
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 8, 2020 17:34:53 GMT
So it begins, the vote for A won, but the B's will never let it go. I don't think anyone is suggesting A didn't win. It's just that the thread title is grossly misleading, given that the overwhelming majority of investors didn't vote. If you wanted to go with Option A, why would you vote? I voted Option A only because it was blocking access to my account, otherwise I wouldn't have voted, being happy with the default.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Apr 8, 2020 17:45:18 GMT
Anyone can string a set of numbers together. The question was: what is your 7.5% number intended to actually represent ?
You appear to be trying to imply that only 7.5% of the weighted-by-investment lender base voted for A. But unless I'm having a senior moment - and I can't rule that out - that doesn't pass a basic sense check, let alone the maths.
Not sure what else to say but the number strung together are supplied by AC, if AC could please give us all the numbers i.e.
.......
AC have given us all the numbers you need. Its just that, to borrow from a wonderful comedian, but to bastardise at the same time, not only have you not "got all the right numbers but in the wrong order", you've chosen to not even select the right numbers, even though they are there. They have given us all that is needed to do that calculation, as now explained/given by me twice.
|
|
