October 25, 2009
Reflections on the Kiva Story
By David Roodman Tags: Kiva
Just over three weeks have passed since I first blogged on Kiva. The journey since then can be measured in other ways, and at extents I never imagined: several hundred tweets, 50 comments on this blog, nearly a score of blog posts elsewhere, 10,000 hits to the original post, a reply from Matt Flannery, and a Kiva web site revision. I have written little more till now on Kiva; I have been busy, I already had a long turn at the microphone, and I preferred to watch the reaction blossom.
[Update: I just noticed Kiva changed the tag line on its home page. Was: "Kiva lets you lend to a specific entrepreneur, empowering them to lift themselves out of poverty." Is: "Kiva connects people through lending to alleviate poverty." Nice.]
What to make of it all? For one, the experience shows the attractions of specificity and controversy. A blog entitled “Nonprofits Sometimes Simplify Explanations to Donors of What They Do” would have been a bigger story but would not have garnered much attention. And it helps to blog topics of natural interest to those who tweet. More generally it demonstrate the remarkable power of electronic social networks to propagate ideas.
All that is fine. I am thrilled with the interest. But I also know that the greatest occupational hazard in my business is letting (modest) success like this go to one’s head, distorting one’s judgment and one’s judgment about the quality of one’s judgment. What matters more is whether I have done good. Will my writing make any poor people better off?
The case can be made. Tim Ogden, who follows matters of philanthropy full time, commented that “the longer we gently mislead the public about both microfinance and philanthropy, the more painful the hangover will ultimately be.” By prompting to Kiva to become more transparent, I have saved Kiva and other peer-to-peer non-profits it inspires from an even bigger backlash down the road. Also, I have helped people who I would not have otherwise reached think more critically about charity and microfinance, in particular about the gaps between the simple, confident pitches for particular programs and the complexities of carrying those programs out and determining their impacts.
On the other hand, I take seriously the arguments of Sasha Dichter of the Acumen Fund and Ashley at SocialEarth that there is only so much to gain from bemoaning human nature. We like stories, and if serving them up makes us feel good about giving, is that so bad? How much charity is really selfless anyway?
The attention has forced me to ponder whether the message of the post—that Kiva should be more transparent about the person-to-person relationships it seems to construct—is worthy of this attention, not to mention the time I put into writing it; and if not, whether a larger point that has been missed.
Let me tell you about my visit to Kiva 9 days ago. By luck I was in San Francisco for personal reasons. I took advantage of the opportunity to visit Kiva’s office, spending about an hour each with Premal Shah, the president, and Ben Elberger, who manages relations with microfinance institutions (MFIs) in Anglophone Africa and used to work here at CGD. Unfortunately, Matt Flannery was not around. We actually spent few words on the blog controversy. And because everyone was wonderfully friendly and open and we set no ground rules about what was “on the record,” I hesitate to report too specifically on some matters, lest I violate confidences. Some thoughts:
- The people behind the sexy web site could hardly be more informal. Imagine T-shirts, jeans, dull carpet, cubicles, sub-Ikea-grade furniture, minimal decoration. Entering the building and office suite is about as ceremonious as visiting your friend’s appointment. Except worse, because the phone system you use to dial the office to be buzzed in doesn’t work.
- I know this is stating the obvious, but the web site is an elaborate façade. There are the people who run Kiva, the people who use it, and in between the web machine. Users mentally equate the site with the organization, as I did before I visited. But the site is like the glass that separates customer and teller. Kiva employees too think of the site as distinct from themselves, as an electronic object that they manage and through which they see their customers. (Except of course that it’s not quite so transparent…) Largely hidden behind the façade is an organization with personalities, history, divisions, uncertainties, and struggles (not least to grow fast). However unitary its site, Kiva is not a monolith, and its actions do not emanate from a single, all-knowing intentionality. I got the impression, for instance, that many people within Kiva had never seen the MFI-facing diagram of how it works. If so, then I overreached somewhat in commenting that the existence of this diagram “reflected a choice, not just an accident caused by scrambling to keep up with its growth.”
- That said, I stand by the spirit of the comment. Even when an organization acts in ways that are not entirely premeditated, those acts reflect organizational values. That the “How It Works page” languished unchanged for perhaps three years despite the problems I pointed to says that the organization had higher priorities. In particular, the Kiva organization has two main divisions: the people like Ben who work with MFIs and the tech guys who do the web site. I got the impression that the tech side drives the organization. Matt and Premal both come out of the Silicon Valley/Bay Area Internet start-up milieu. The site is what makes Kiva special. By training, people coming out TiVo, eBay, and Yahoo! don’t think as much about the product they’re selling as they do about how to sell it—how to maximize the “conversion rate” (% of visitors who buy). One way to do that, as an example, is not to mention on the loan page that the borrower will pay 30% or 50% interest. I know people at Kiva care deeply about microfinance and are learning more all the time, but I think the dominance of the Internet commerce culture is one root of the current controversy.
- Ben persuaded me that I probably overestimated the costs for MFIs of working with Kiva. Yes, they must collect, translate, and post stories, and pictures too, but this costs something closer to 1% of the loan amount than the roughly 10% I feared. I had figured that the labor was comparable to that of making a loan. But a) the MFI only has to do it once for each loan, whereas it must typically meet with the borrower every week to collect loan installments; and b) for group loans, it must only perform the act once for the group, not separately for each borrower. (I’m not certain where I got the erroneous figure that Kiva charges MFIs 2% interest. I know I didn’t completely make it up, but I apologize for the mistake.) On the other hand, the cost of operating the web site may be substantial. Kiva’s expenses (registration required) for the first months of 2009 were $1.9 million, against a throughput I calculate at $20.7 million during the same time, for a non-trivial 9% expense ratio. (This snapshot might not be indicative of the long term trend.) In theory, if Kiva users stopped asking for stories, Kiva could drop its P2P (person-to-person) fiction, shrink its operations, and pass substantial savings on to MFIs and their borrowers.
- I learned that when users complain to Kiva about feeling misled, it is less often about what I wrote about, that loans are disbursed before posting, than about Kiva borrowers having to pay what seem like high interest rates. (Colleague John Simon, a friend of Kiva, first pointed this issue out to me.) On the page for the loan to Phong Mut in Cambodia, who I wrote about before, the interest rate she pays appears nowhere. Since Kiva users earn 0%, and since nothing on the loan pages implies otherwise, some (many?) Kiva users assume borrowers pay 0%. But if you dig around, you can learn that Phong Mut’s lender, MAXIMA, typically charges 29%/year. It keeps all that to cover the costs of providing microcredit. How much interest Phong Mut will pay is unclear. The repayment history at the bottom of her loan page shows principle payments only. Nor is interest in the new How Kiva Works diagram. While it is appropriate for MFIs to charge enough interest to cover their costs, which are typically substantial relative to the small loans being made, the higher the interest rate, the more frequently will credit leave borrowers worse off. Rates do matter and Kiva users ought to understand this aspect of the transactions to which they are party.
One clever piece of the Kiva organization, and a special strength, is the Kiva Fellows, volunteers who, at their own expense, visit MFI offices and borrowers to collect and check stories. They are the eyes and ears of Kiva. Among other things, they sniff for fraud. (They are also a hidden cost, in the sense that Fellow’s time and expenses are an economic cost of charity in the Kiva model.) The Fellows program page contains a picture (right) of a Fellow videotaping an interview with a borrower in Sierra Leone. The young American is viewing the man through the lens of a camera that probably cost more than the Sierra Leone’s GDP/capita, having arrived their on airfare priced even higher. He is having a good experience. The borrower may not have heard of Kiva until shortly before this interview. Chiefly on his mind must be how to protect his access to capital, which means saying whatever it is he thinks the young American wants to hear. Probably he understands that he must talk about his enterprise even if he used the loan for to pay for his father’s funeral. Probably he understands that he should accentuate the positive to come off to the extent he can as the “entrepreneur empowered to lift himself out of poverty,” to paraphrase Kiva’s old home page. He is to play a role. Though probably older and wiser, he is less lucky in life, so he is the object. [Note: Some Kiva Fellows have strongly objected to my projections here.]
The picture crystallizes my feelings about Kiva’s story-constructing ethos, which I emphasize is emblematic of microfinance groups and charities generally. It makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps that means I am a self-righteous critic, a haughty intellectual enjoying his pretended superiority over the majority of the human race that craves stories, while not having to get his hands dirty actually helping people. Maybe so. Regardless, I would say this: If you are comfortable enough with this picture, and understand and like how Kiva operates, interest rates and all, then lend through Kiva. If not, then both you and I need to learn how Kiva compares to other microfinance conduits on overhead rates. Do groups such as the Grameen Foundation and Acción International and MicroPlace channel funds to MFIs more efficiently? Or has Kiva, with its high-tech shoestring culture found a way to harness modern technology to bring the cost of the P2P experience close to zero?
Taking a step back, I see that the important question here is not whether Kiva is adequately transparent. It is whether and when microcredit helps people. Kiva, like all microfinance outfits, faces powerful incentives against being too inquisitive about the latter question. This is why the groups I most admire are the ones that are inquisitive enough to perform serious research, such as Freedom from Hunger and Bangladesh-based BRAC. BRAC, in addition to being a Kiva partner in Africa, is an extraordinary learning organization, as I am learning now from Ian Smillie’s book. I believe that BRAC founder Fazle Abed ought someday to stand next to Muhammad Yunus as a Nobel laureate. In this light, Kiva’s hospitality and responsiveness to me in the last few weeks bode well. What I want to see more of in this business is what Abed infused in BRAC: a culture of public, critical thinking about what is being done.
October 28, 2009 at 3:21 pm
David:
I completely agree with you, Abed should someday stand next to Yunus as a Nobel laureate.
October 29, 2009 at 7:14 am
I should say that I think the Grameen Bank is also a fantastic learning organization. The difference, it appears to me, is that Yunus and Grameen place tremendous faith in the ability of poor people to manage and improve their own affairs, and so do not invest as much energy in learning about how Grameen services change people’s lives. Whereas BRAC is based more on the idea that the NGO must learn about impacts too and take responsibility for making/planning changes to the broader economy rather than leaving poor people to fend for themselves. I am sure there is value in both views. BRAC has had clear success with its approach; on the other hand Yunus’s faith is a healthy tonic to all the approaches to helping the poor that decide in advance what they need.
October 29, 2009 at 9:35 am
David,
I really like the human dimension of this post. Innovations are human dramas as much as technology/policy ones. I blogged a few thoughts on this at:
http://denniswhittle.blogspot.com/2009/10/human-drama-of-learning.html
Dennis
October 29, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Mr. Roodman,
In reference to your paragraph on the Kiva Fellows program, I would like to know if you consulted a single Kiva Fellow before writing that paragraph. Did you consult a single Kiva Fellow journal entry on the Kiva journals page, where dozens of humbling stories that are in no way success stories are posted each and every day? Did you consult the many entries on the Kiva Fellows blog that touch upon some of the hardest stories we hear, and how many of our borrowers have difficulty understanding who we are because they have never used the internet? Do you know that Kiva Fellows rarely take part in the interviewing of the borrower for the initial loan description, which is typically done by the MFI staff thus removing (what you believe is) the “young American” from the equation? Did you consult a single borrower in the field that had been interviewed by a Kiva Fellow, to discern how they reacted to the interviewer?
Or did you really just post a paragraph about the Kiva Fellows program in which you described the program entirely based on a single photo that is found on the Kiva Fellows Program page on Kiva?
Mr. Roodman, I understand that you are a blogger, as am I. But please do not insult a program by allowing your numerous readers to walk away with an opinion based on rambling sentences asserting a borrower “probably understands that…” – backing those sentences with no research. I would have happily answered any questions you had on Kiva Fellows, as I have been one now for five months and have three months left to go. When I finish reading a blog like this, I am left feeling that you are taking advantage of the attention that your previous post criticizing Kiva has given you, and you have continued to berate the organization so as to prolong the attention – even if that means berating it without foundation.
But, that wouldn’t happen, right? Not just because you are “thrilled with the interest” your posts have aroused.
Suzy Marinkovich
Kiva Fellow in Peru & Bolivia
October 29, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Suzy,
I did talk at length to one former Kiva Fellow, though I did not ask him all the questions you listed. I talked to no borrowers. If it is rare for Kiva Fellows to interview clients, I think you can see why I got the opposite impression: the only photo on the page about the Kiva Fellows program is of a Fellow interviewing a client. I think it is pretty clear from what I wrote that I was guessing or projecting about what the people in the picture were thinking and leaving myself open, through the blog mechanism, to be corrected by those who know better.
After stating my projections, I said a) the picture makes me uncomfortable (a fact which cannot be debated); b) this is not just about Kiva, but microfinance in general; c) maybe I’m just being a righteous intellectual; and d) if the picture doesn’t bother for you, the potential Kiva user, go for it. Are these terrible things to say?
I understand that in general, MFI employees, not Kiva Fellows, interview the clients. But surely the same power dynamic is there, maybe even more strongly? I would not assert that every borrower paints a rosy scenario, only that tend in that direction. Certainly I would if I were in their position, and that a system could produce that effect makes me uncomfortable. What would increase Kiva’s credibility in my eyes is if it stops calling all borrowers entrepreneurs. Lots of borrowers use microcredit for good things that are not enterprise. As for the hardest stories Fellows hear: do they also make it onto kiva.org, where users can see them? I encourage you to post links of examples.
Suzy, not for a second have I questioned the motives of anyone in that picture. I like my work: it is great for me and I hope it makes the world a slightly better place. I bet the pictured Kiva Fellow can say the same. My motive in discussing the photo (I sincerely believe) was to move beyond the narrow is-Kiva-transparent question to something more important, as a way to bring my own thinking about this business to a close. I am sorry that I caused you to question that motive.
–David
October 29, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Hi David,
What Suzy meant is that we Fellows rarely interview borrowers as far as writing a borrower’s profile is concerned. We do meet and interview them in order to write the journal updates. I have met and interviewed about 40 entrepreneurs since I began my fellowship less than four weeks ago.
Here is a link to a journal I recently posted telling a “difficult” story : http://partners.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=comment&id=120050&ent=188494
Apart from being displayed on the website, every journal update is sent to the borrower’s Kivalenders by e-mail…
I will not spend more time searching for other examples, you can just browse the journal page on Kiva Website and make your mind.
Thomas
(French) Kiva Fellow in Dominican Republic
October 29, 2009 at 6:26 pm
As a student of development and a healthy skeptic, I understand the argument you make about this image representing an ‘ethos’ that makes you uncomfortable. I too appreciate when the “human dimension” (as David Whittle called it) is brought to the table in a development discussion. As Kiva Fellow, I’d like to bring the other side of the “human dimension” into the photo analogy you present.
I assume that prior to setting up the camera in the above photo, the Kiva Fellow first took part in a conversation. A genuine conversation that probably included eye contact, questions and follow-ups, and probably some cross-cultural awkwardness. That was always my experience with borrower interviews. Some of the borrowers I got to meet were excited to tell their stories and they invited me to visit them later in town. Not because I represented a source of capital. But because we’d made a human connection. They’d laugh at my attempt to speak in their tribal language, and sometimes I’d ask, after our conversation, if they’d be willing to repeat a short bit for the video camera (if it felt appropriate).
Many times, when asked about how their businesses were doing after taking a loan, borrowers told me that times were still hard. See my journal entries for Rosemary
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=95098&_tpos=1&_tpg=1
or Alice, http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=66717&_tpos=20&_tpg=2
who both describe their continued hardship in short video clips.
Like I said, I appreciate any closer look at development interventions to see how they impact people’s dignity, agency, and ultimately their psycho and social well-being. Kiva is no exception. I don’t doubt that many times the conversations that take place between Kiva Fellows and borrowers involve some insecurity on the side of the borrowers. (They might feel nervous about protecting their source of capital, in the same way that any conversation with a stranger causes people to keep their defenses high.) I’m not trying to paint a picture that Kiva Fellows work is always rosy. But I am trying to say that it is about people.
Kiva Fellows who are people, too. People who are capable of engaging in relationships that are edifying (as well as objectifying). We miss the point if we assume that just because the Kiva Fellows are Western foreigners that the individuals on the other side of the relationship are being exploited.
I understand that your comments about the Kiva Fellows program are not a shot at the work of the fellows but are intended as a metaphor for Kiva, microfinance, and other charities. But I believe that my illustration about Kiva Fellows translates to an argument about Kiva’s ‘ethos’ in general. As you said, Kiva is not a monolith, but it is made up of people with varying opinions and perspectives. Those people are constantly working to adapt this new business model so that it is edifying to each of its stakeholders.
In my experience, Kiva has demonstrated adaptability and eagerness to learn, in that regard, and I am hopeful that your blog entries are contributing to important ongoing conversations taking place atop the “sub-Ikea grade furniture.” I’ll remain a Kiva lender. As Whittle wrote in his blog, I believe that Kiva’s response in this conversation (and past and future conversations?) is “an important story itself” – an important precedent for development NGOs.
Alison Carlman KF8, Kenya
October 29, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Thank you, Alison. Wonderfully thoughtful and persuasive for me.
October 29, 2009 at 11:24 pm
David,
I can imagine a picture with you in front of Kiva, the organization, interviewing it and subjecting it to your pontification. Who is really benefiting the most from the dynamic? What are you doing for poverty alleviation lately?
October 30, 2009 at 9:22 am
Anonymous, as I wrote above, “I like my work: it is great for me and I hope it makes the world a slightly better place. I bet the pictured Kiva Fellow can say the same.” That is as much as I claim. We each try, using the skills and propensities it is our fortune to have.
“Pontificate” seems strong. I think I have worked hard to temper criticism, to say what I feel and wonder rather than what others should do.
Nevertheless, this continuing stream of anger has given me food for thought. It is upsetting for me too. It shows me a virtue of the blog medium, which gives me feedback about the effects of my words on others. It may well have been a mistake for me to personalize my discomfort by projecting onto the people in that picture, one of whom proxied for all Kiva Fellows. (Please understand, I did not go out of my way to force that photo into my narrative. When I closed my eyes and tried to think beyond “is-Kiva-transparent-enough?” that picture came to the fore.) I am sorry for implying that the work of Kiva Fellows is worse than a waste. Commenters have done well to remind me that you have complex, humbling, inspiring interactions with many people you meet.
I think I should have talked about the picture, if at all, in two clearly distinguished ways: as a snapshot of an interaction between people about whom I know next to nothing, who are more complicated than I can imagine; and as a symbol of what happens when the donating public responds so strongly to caricatures of the lives of poor people. For me, the literal frame for that picture is the Kiva site, which until recently was emblazoned with the statement that its loans empower entrepreneurs to lift themselves out of poverty, and still calls all the borrowers “entrepreneurs.” These word choices in turn reflect the desires of regular folks who use Kiva. In other words, we have met the enemy and he is us (Pogo)—not the Kiva Fellows. I expect many Kiva Fellows collect evidence that things are not so simple as kiva.org suggests. If so, is the site, in shoehorning borrowers into a particular image, not disrespectful of them? Is this so different from the crime I am accused of?
Thank you again for your honesty.
–David
November 1, 2009 at 10:45 am
I wanted to elaborate on your view of the borrower in the photo from the Kiva website. While I don’t dispute that some of the borrowers on Kiva want to secure their funding, I don’t see how this is any different from anyone else not wanting to have their credit card taken away.
However, in my experience as a Kiva Fellow like the others, I have been shocked to the point of embarassment at the candidness of microcredit customers. I think a part of it comes from the fact that a lot of the clients are from rural areas where secrets are hard to keep, and a good loan officer would know if a client’s father had died.
I also think that there is an explicit choice on the borrower’s part in being on the Kiva site that is often overlooked. It should always be made clear that the loan is also available if they don’t go on Kiva. There are examples of this in countries like Lebanon, Azerbaijan or Tajikistan where most of the borrowers appearing on Kiva are men: the reason is not that these MFIs primarily have male clients.
From my experience as a Kiva Fellow, meeting Kiva borrowers, I have felt from some borrowers that they are as curious (and proud in some cases) that people around the world have taken an explicit interest in their lives.
November 1, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Thank you, Rob. Yes, I think you are right that I underestimated the pride people can feel in telling their own stories, thus their readiness to do so. If someone came to interview me and showed sincere interest in my life, and persuaded for me that it was safe, I would be happy to open up.
November 4, 2009 at 10:19 pm
David,
A bit unrelated, but nevertheless I want to share with you a post I wrote a few months ago during my first Kiva placement. It’s yet another reflection on Kiva, but more generally on microfinance. Rather than another critique of microfinance, I hope that maybe you will find it a refreshingly positive story to read during your research on the subject.
http://fellowsblog.kiva.org/2009/06/26/what-if-microfinance-really-does-work/
All the best,
Suzy
November 9, 2009 at 12:28 pm
David, thanks for your posts. I have been a long time donor to Kiva, and at first when I read what you wrote I was a bit upset. Now I am just confused. While annoying that they play with their time sequencing and facts, on the whole they do deliver what they say. But now I am curious. Instead of recycling my $25 every few months or so, wouldn’t it be great if I could direct my funds towards an MFI that is delivering quality non-defaulting loans at lower interest rates and low overhead? There isn’t any easy way to find them using the Kiva search screens, or jumping into Guidestar or Mixmarket.org only overwhelms me with data and not any analysis. Plus, most MFIs don’t take individual donations. My thought on this is that if I already have a relationship with an MFI thru Kiva and they have repaid my loan (or loans), then why not support them directly and dispense with all the “save the children” mumbo-jumbo storytelling BS?
Wokai.org only allows three periods to recycle your funds before they take it from you and put into their general operations, which I am not sure I like either. Microplace.org gives you a return on your donation, but that isn’t important to me, plus their finances are hidden behind eBay so not much in the transparency realm there either. And the big microfinance guns such as Accionusa.org or Grameen Foundation.org have huge overheads and salaries as a percentage of their programs, which doesn’t thrill me either.
I have come full circle on Kiva as a result of all this Internet research—meaning that I still like their model, their low overheads, and their high(er) transparency. I may put together something for my own blog, but in the meantime, thanks for your efforts.
November 11, 2009 at 4:21 pm
David,
While I respect your opinion of Kiva, I think there’s a much bigger picture here that you’re missing. It’s about people helping people because the opportunity exists to do so. Should we not be excited that our global community is poised to help one another? To get into semantics just takes away from the beauty of micro-finance. Typical interest rates (from my understanding) are at least what you describe above, if not more.
My wife and I had the privilege of visiting, interviewing and editing together a series of Kiva videos from Vietnam and Cambodia. Regardless of the interest rates, and order in which the loans are disbursed and repaid, it’s another option for people looking to connect with others and make an impact on their lives. The silk-weavers, farmers, drivers, craft-makers, and others we met with were all appreciative of the OPTION they had to capital. It’s not all that often that an opportunity to receive $500 comes through the lives of people living in developing countries. If you were in their position, would you not be interested in such a program? This gives their families a foundation for the future. It’s a one-strike and you’re out option for them. If they default, they’ll never have an opportunity for another loan through an MFI. Instead, they’ll be forced to pay nearly 100% interest rate by the local loan shark. So in truth, shouldn’t they be excited about Kiva and peer-to-peer lending?
As for the stories that you claim make you ‘uncomfortable’ … Really?!? Stories make you uncomfortable because of the cost of a camera being equal to that of the GDP/capita of the country in which it’s rolling in? Do you propose Kiva and its MFI partners use typewriters and morse code to facilitate the loans as well? What’s wrong with technology, or more importantly, stories? You’re a blogger, yes? Does it not make you uncomfortable to write about these people using technology? I think not.
We made it a practice to show people how they look in the video camera. Not to show them our cool, expensive technology, but because being interviewed was a point of excitement for them. They get to tell their story, not toe the company line of the MFI or Kiva. They expressed thankfulness to the people who lent to them, and we’re excited to know that people care about them enough to invest in them.
The stories we captured from the 36 people (nearly exclusively women) we visited are powerful, truthful, and I’m assuming, standard sentiments toward Kiva. When the borrowers see their lender page print out, they crack smiles ear-to-ear. Can you imagine their excitement when seeing a number of people lending them money from places far beyond anything they’ve ever seen? These are hard working people. I’m confident to say, harder workers than you or I have ever been.
The bottom line: The loans posted by Kiva actually do go to the people they say they do, and the repayments really do come from them as well. The stories of these people are moving and real. To deny their voices makes the entire process impossible. Learning about their ideas and dreams gives Kiva’s users a reason and way to evaluate the borrower. They are most certainly entrepreneurs, that’s not even up for debate.
While criticism is your fundamental right, why not redirect your energy to something more worthwhile, like demystifying real problems instead of semantic ones.
Many thanks,
James Connolly
My Story, Our World Productions
http://www.ThePositiveStory.com
November 14, 2009 at 2:43 am
Solari.com/blog is the web site for Catherine Austin Fitts which is how I jumped in to lending with Kiva. If it passes her screens it’s way beyond good enough.
David your blog post (brief) gave me back story to the dating confusion and overall Kiva website experience like my discomfort over maybe the exchange rate risk is covered maybe not. Now I know it is likely the people paying high double digit loan rates that cover that.
Hard to believe the tech side of Kiva came from places like Yahoo and Ebay (if they did) and left kiva.org content so dated. Actually it is not believable so I doubt web techies are running the Kiva message. Honestly I did not think the decision to lend thru and now realize the site certainly kept it simplistic and did not give reason to pause.
Following the local economy angle at solari.com/blog I just went ahead and did kiva lending. No Regrets though.
One thing for certain..I would NOT HAVE lent right away had I known I was getting zero and the person who got funds paid more than bad credit card rates in U.S.A. HERE is where the transparency comes in ! If I contribute to the local Kiva effort with their very efficient and effective option to do so (provided by Kiva site at checkout) does the person getting loan ALSO get a lower interest rate on that money. Paper and electron money is just as subject to commodity pricing as oil or grain. The loan interest can go down in DIRECT portion to my contribution for overhead at checkout and I get a tax benefit.
TRANSPARENCY? What exactly is the expense breakdown causing such high rates? How badly would the MFI groups fare if they had to give side by side comparisons to justify the higher interest rates. No I do not want to trek down their reports etc.. a side by side would way more useful though damaging to the “story.”
Thanks (and yes your Intellectualism is showing and a reason not to stay on your blog.)
Richard
December 7, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I did think that Kiva was a good sight but after i read this i was confused, is Kiva a good thing or bad thing? Please answer.
January 4, 2010 at 9:28 am
I have been a Kiva lender for many years now.
When I first came across this article, I had an uneasy feeling, as I immediately wondered what dirty secrets it was going to uncover about Kiva.
I read avidly from top to bottom and wondered what all the fuss was about!
I haven’t learned anything I didn’t already know.
As a matter of fact, Matt states correctly in his response that all the info can be found on the Kiva website, should one care to click on a link or two.
That’s exactly what I did when I first heard of Kiva and found the answers to all my questions regarding interests rates, Kiva’s role with the MFI’s, timing of loan disbursal, applicant’s process, etc.
One can only put the info out there, not make people click on it and read it!
My second observation is that, being an aspiring social entrepreneur myself, doing something of this magnitude cannot be undertaken without pitfalls.
I am sure Matt is very much aware of those, but if one wants to make an impact, prioritizing is a required skills. That’s exactly what Matt did.
There are those who preach and those who do. I admire those who do As Benjamin Franklin: The man who does things makes mistakes, but he doesn’t make the biggest mistake of all—doing nothing.