Pissed Off Kiva Lenders
20 June 2009
By John Briggs, KF8 Kenya
Update on sentiment shift: On June 23, Tom, the team captain for the (formerly) Pissed Off Kiva Lenders, changed the team name to Unhappy Kiva Lenders. Tom explained the name change in a posting on the team page: “I want the day to come soon when the team name will be ‘Delighted Again Kiva Lenders’ but the step above in the name change reflects current progress.”
Some Kiva lenders are pissed off about Kiva’s recent launch of loans to borrowers in the United States. Their angry cry has been heard in Kenya.
I arrived in Kenya two weeks ago to work with new Kiva field partner KADET. My marathon orientation-and-training tour is in full swing: this week I met dozens of KADET branch personnel in the western cities of Kisumu and Eldoret.
Successfully setting up Kiva-related operations poses many challenges for MFIs, but my new KADET colleagues made quick work of it. Both branches were able to post borrowers to Kiva on the same day they were introduced to it: Kisumu posted Maulyne’s loan and Eldoret posted Monicah’s loan.
Both loans were funded overnight, and the KADET staff was jubilant. At the Eldoret branch I joined KADET staff in poring over the Kiva lenders and lending teams who had supported Monicah. One lending team for Monicah’s loan jumped out at us: the Pissed Off Kiva Lenders.
Pissed off lenders? People at KADET were surprised. This wasn’t in the Kiva orientation I’d given them. Stephen Makanga, KADET’s integration and donor relations manager, and I decided to open the Pissed Off Kiva Lenders team page to find out more.
Image from the Pissed Off Kiva Lenders' team page
A statement on the page announced, “Kiva’s stated mission is to ‘alleviate poverty’. Poverty is defined as: ‘the state of having little or no money and few or no material possessions’. Does that sound more like the situation for US Kiva borrowers or borrowers from the Third World countries?”
Stephen gave the page an incredulous stare and kept reading.
“Now the truly impoverished are being asked to COMPETE for funds with borrowers in the US. The US is the wealthiest and most resource-full nation in world history. To think that we are asking lenders from the US and around the world to even consider lending to the US is a shameful, disgraceful decision.”
The sharp criticism went on.
“There was a recent Kiva loan request from a US man with a four year college degree in architecture and many years experience in that field. He decided he wanted to do something different and try his hand at website design. He was looking for $7000. If he gets it that’s $7000 which previously would have been available to 7-10 other borrowers in developing countries.”
After reading the whole statement, Stephen turned and looked at me. He waited a moment before he began to speak. “First of all, I believe there are poor people in the U.S. — forget about the wealth of the nation. If someone can reach those poor people because they understand their poverty, I have no problem with that. It’s okay.”
Stephen continued, “Poverty isn’t so simple — it’s a complex web comprising material deprivation, state of mind, and underutilized potential.”
He paused for a moment, and then turned to the Pissed Off Lenders’ criticism of the loan to the U.S. Kiva borrower who quit his job at an architecture firm in order to start his own business.
“I have a brother who stays at home and does vegetable farming. Whenever I go home, I don’t like having to give him money. Instead I like asking what he can do better than what he’s currently doing. The point is: what is more productive for him under his circumstances? If the man who worked in architecture is more productive being a web designer, then people should support him. It’s not like we’re short of people who can continue to support small loans on Kiva — this one won’t seriously affect the equation and supply and demand of small loans. I would be encouraged if that architect became more productive, and then was able to himself become a lender on Kiva.”
I thought about what he’d said, and was inclined to agree. But the Pissed Off Lenders still had a great point — what if competition from large loans to U.S. borrowers on Kiva began to crowd out funding for borrowers in places like Kenya? That would be unwelcome. I asked Stephen what he thought about that possibility.
“I believe there are people at Kiva who are watching to see if small entrepreneurs’ demands are being met,” he answered, adding, “If the demand for these bigger loans by U.S. entrepreneurs goes overboard, the Kiva people will obviously see it and put a check on it. The only time I would worry if is there were a shortage of people funding small loans, but before it would get to that point, I believe that the people at Kiva would have already taken action.”
Even though Stephen has just made Kiva’s acquaintance, it’s clear he trusts the judgment of its decision makers. To a point, however — he continued, “If the worst came to worst, KADET or other MFIs would still have access of loan capital, except those other sources are more expensive. I am also aware that there other peer-to-peer lenders, such as MYC4, although for MFIs their terms slightly different than Kiva.”
I nodded. Stephen had nailed it: While Kiva has helped fund over $75 million in loans so far, its contribution to microfinance funding represents a sliver of the multi-billion dollar microcredit industry. And Kiva, the first mover in person-to-person microlending, is beginning to get competition from other websites with a similar model, giving MFIs more of a choice of which organization they choose to partner with.
Moreover, as microfinance has come into its own, institutional investors with deep pockets have been aggressively courting many MFIs, albeit investors primarily interested in financial, not social, returns. So even if Kiva has misjudged by partnering with lenders that fund U.S. borrowers, its non-U.S. lending partners still have a variety of options of which to avail.
For all his faith in Kiva, Stephen did have one doubt related to Kiva’s launch of lending to U.S. borrowers. Towards the end of our conversation he said, “I have just recently learned that the individual loan limit for U.S. borrowers on Kiva is $10,000, but in Kenya and most other countries it’s only $1,200. I don’t like this at all.”
Stephen explained, “There are different categories of microfinance borrowers in Kenya who require loans that are far beyond the limit of $1,200.” He paused and looked at me intently, adding, “My last word is: it’s high time that Kiva think about revising the loan limits for countries like Kenya.”
I’d agree. Kiva’s limit on an individual loan size is $10,000 for borrowers in the U.S., $3,000 for borrowers in some countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East, and $1,200 for borrowers elsewhere. Kiva’s limits on loan sizes are usually pegged at or above the average size of microloans for a given country, but for most countries the limits haven’t been adjusted in a long time. If you’re a microentrepreneur in Kenya, $1,200 may not get you very far.
In working with KADET, I ran an analysis of loan disbursals the MFI made for the month of May and found many of them didn’t qualify for Kiva. Most of the disqualifed ones were below $2,000, and often they were just above the $1,200 loan limit. Group loan limits of an average of $400 per borrower also crimped things.
There were, however, more than enough smaller loans that qualified for Kiva to meet KADET’s fundraising target, so shutting out larger loans wasn’t a serious problem. It simply meant that a narrower range of KADET borrowers would make it to Kiva; borrowers with smaller loans tend to be newer (and riskier) KADET clients, while the ones that get larger loans are established clients who have proved their mettle and business acumen. Limit or not, KADET is committed to representing as many different kinds of its borrowers as possible on Kiva, small and large.
Like Stephen, I have faith in Kiva and the braintrust that has made it such a success. I’d imagine revisions to loan limits are in the works, especially with the advent of lending to U.S. borrowers.
I’m curious to find out what you think — should Kiva raise its loan limits? If so, should it be done on a universal basis, or should it be done on a country-by-country basis?
More on Kiva’s launch of U.S. lending: an open letter from Kiva President Premal Shah and CEO Matt Flannery about pilot partnerships in the U.S.; a Kiva Friends discussion of USA Lending; the Pissed Off Kiva Lenders page; and an earlier blog post I wrote, “Upending microcredit: Cambodians use Kiva to lend to U.S. borrowers“.
Kiva borrower Maulyne Obura and Stephen Makanga in Kisumu
Stephen Makanga is from Emali, Makueni District, Eastern Province, Kenya. Growing up, his father and mother were subsistence farmers who grew corn, beans, vegetables, and coffee (“when the industry was still good”), and raised livestock such as cows and goats. He has four sisters and five brothers, and is the youngest among his siblings. Stephen is the only one in his family to have attended university, though one brother attended a teacher training college and is now a primary school teacher. Stephen attended Egerton University in Nakuru, working his way through school as a public high school teacher; he got some support from his parents, but he also took out loans from the Higher Education Loans Board, which he’s still paying off at the age of 40. He graduated in 1994 with a degree in agricultural economics.
After graduation, it was hard for Stephen find steady employment, so he took a series of small teaching jobs. In 1997, he got a job with the Ministry of Agriculture as an agricultural extension officer, training farmers as a beekeeping specialist. He left his government position in 2000 to work for World Vision Kenya. At World Vision, he started as a program coordinator for a small food security project in the northeast of Kenya. He went on to be a program manager in charge of the Wajir (district in NE Kenya) relief and rehabilitation program. After that, he moved to Monitoring and Evaluation for the coast region of World Vision Kenya. A year later, Stephen became the program manager overseeing all World Vision development programs for coastal Kenya. He joined KADET, which is owned by World Vision, in 2007 as the manager of Integration and Donor Relations.
John Briggs is a Kiva Fellow serving with the Kenya Agency for Development of Enterprise and Technology (KADET) (KF8). Before being posted in Kenya, he worked with Kiva field partners Ahon Sa Hirap, Inc. (ASHI) (KF7) in the Philippines and Maxima Mikroheranvatho (KF6) in Cambodia.
Entry Filed under: All, KADET (The Kenya Agency for the Development of Enterprise and Technology), KF8 (Kiva Fellows 8th Class), Kenya, United States. Tags: Kenya, Kiva, microcredit, microfinance, microlending.
46 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
RSS - Posts
1. Etherealmind | 20 June 2009 at 10:48
I am utterly opposed to Kiva offering loans. As you state in your forum signup (as at 2009/06/20(
“Kiva is an organization that only lends to developing third-world countries. If you are in the USA and are looking for loan, Kiva is not the place to get one. However, there are other web sites and services available for similar person-to-person lending in the States. Prosper.com is a popular one that has gotten some major press.”
Changing this is a major breach of faith, and not something I can accept. I will be withdrawing my money and giving up on microfinance as a result.
I can only feel that you have given in to the Americans’ love of themselves, and their lack of comprehension of the whole planet. It’s heartbreaking to see you are so narrow minded.
I have never been so disappointed in a charity.
2. Stiggle | 20 June 2009 at 11:38
While Kiva has now started offering loans to US based borrowers, those of us who finace Kiva’s loans can protest against this by not providing them the money they are asking for and keep funding those elsewhere where the money will make a bigger difference.
3. Greg | 20 June 2009 at 12:09
John,
Thanks for taking on this contentious topic head on.
This seems to be part of the discussion of whether microfinance’s purpose is the elimination of poverty or the enablement of business. It seems that, whether in Kenya or the US, there is a certain segment of the population the is under served by traditional banking services. These people either live in poverty or fall prey to non-traditional sources charging usurious rates for use of capital.
By enabling business development and training, microfinance can alleviate the current levels of poverty and help provide education for the next generation.
I found it interesting that Kiva is pre-selecting the riskiest loans simply through maintenance of outdated funding caps. I think that periodic review and revision of lending caps on a country by country basis would allow Kiva lenders to provide needed funding through multiple levels of a regions business needs.
I look forward to hearing more about KADET in the near future. They certainly sound like a progressive organization.
Greg
4. Jessica | 20 June 2009 at 12:10
We can pontificate about the rights and wrongs of wealthier countries ability to help the poor in their own country but means squat to the person who who has to live in poverty. I refuse to argue which poor people are more deserving of a helping hand. Poverty is poverty…period!
5. Thomas | 20 June 2009 at 13:57
I completely agree with Jessica. If you start to take into account, what a country could do for their poor people, none of them would qualify for our money. Most countries in Africa would be as wealthy as the US, if their governements had not chosen to steal the money for their own pockets, squandering it for warfare and useless projects to show off and simply be less socialist and more sensible.
If we want to be compassionate with others in the world, support und encourage them in their strive for a better life we have to leave out the political environment from our decisions.
It is a strenght of Kiva that it allows the lender to directly and personally decide to whom his/her money should go.
@Etherealmind: While I understand your frustration to some degree, your reaction punishes not the Kiva organiziation (which you do NOT finance unless you explicitly choose to do so), but the entrepreneurs in the developing countries – the ones you pretend to be concerned about. So I kindly ask you to reconsider your decision to withdraw your money and recommend to keep investing, in people of your liking, and NOT contributing to KIVA itself. So you have them work for you for free and your money gets to where you want it. Wouldn’t that reflect your intent?
However, you will find the right thing to do.
6. Ian | 20 June 2009 at 14:54
Surely this is not an issue. Kiva can include Bill Gates on the pages if they want, it doesn’t mean that he’ll get a loan. I’d say open it right up & let the lenders decide. I don’t need anyone else telling me not to loan to one country compared to another, or even dictating a lending ceiling. If I thing something looks excessive or inappropriate then I’ll just move on. Others with different opinions will lends differently & that’s the beauty of it.
7. Leah | 20 June 2009 at 16:54
Jessica stated it well “Poverty is poverty…period!” If you feel someone in the U.S doesn’t deserve a loan that they can’t get at a bank, click on someone else. But let those of us who do want to loan in our neighborhood and worldwide to have that opportunity.
8. Sharon Cunningham | 20 June 2009 at 17:40
I suppose that it is true that one need not choose recipients in the US, but I am troubled that the needs in other countries are in a completely other league than the needs is the US. That there is such poverty in the US is an indictment of the government and social policy there, not a result of lack of resources. The US should be ashamed that there are so many of their citizens who are in need.
9. Thomas | 20 June 2009 at 18:07
Sharon, that there is such a poverty in ANY country of the world is an indictment of the government and social policy there, not a result of lack of resources. Every government should be ashamed if there is widespread poverty.
If we would base our actions on the responsibilities of the governments, we would become hardhearted instead of compassionate.
Keep lending to those, whom you think they deserve it and let politics out of the discussion. Politics lead to nothin.
10. sundown | 20 June 2009 at 20:14
I am not against Kiva listing loans for US citizens but I seriously question the decision about what loans to list.
The US listing I have perused hardly seem to be ‘poverty’ or ‘hardship’.
Personally my pet peeve with Kiva was when they made the decision to appropriate the balances in accounts that were dormant for 12 months.
It is however a free world: Kiva can make its’ own rules and lenders can decide to play the game or not. The reasons for choosing a loan recipient are personal but all have one characteristic in common: altruism.
The good that Kiva is doing far outweighs their negative decisions. Kiva is the vehicle that allows us to connect with the rest of the world!
11. Joanna | 20 June 2009 at 20:44
@Etherealmind. It is fine if you don’t want to lend to Americans. But to descend to character attacks like calling people narrowminded and lovers of themselves because they are helping some people in their own country as well as continuing all their existing work is completely inappropriate and very rude. Not to mention that if Kiva had given in to being narrow-minded and only loving their own country, why would we be seeing the addition of loans to new developing countries like Kyrgyzstan which started at the same time as American loans and work towards loaning in India?
12. Dagfinn A | 21 June 2009 at 00:33
Sharon, I honestly think that many of the loans from Africa or Asia are not in a completely other league. Poverty takes different form in each country and even within countries at times. the society in which you live have different means and levels of support that can make myself (in Denmark and Norway) just as poor relatively speaking as one in Kenya.
Further I think many a country, especially in Africa, should be equally shameful as you ask of USA for how they have treated their fellow citizens given the richness of resources Africa really have. But to mix politics into this is like asking for nothing to happen. I say let us be content that we have a new vehicle that is not at all perfect but gives you and I the chance to choose individually which other person, far away or close at home, to support.
Sometimes the rest of the world can be found inside of your soul.
13. Megan, KF6 Mexico | 21 June 2009 at 06:22
Kiva is an incredible funding mechanism for micro-finance organizations around the world to expand their services to individuals who do not have access to traditional mechanisms for credit/capital. It is not for Kiva, the web-based funding platform, to make the differentiation about what countries have levels of poverty (or worse individual stories of poverty) sufficiently compelling to participate in Kiva.org.
Kiva vets microfinance institutions to ensure the loans are managed responsibly. This allows the individual lenders to decide which story speaks to them- whether the fruit-seller in Africa or the Central Asian taxi driver or the Bay Area childcare provider.
Great post John. I look forward to many more.
14. Fiona Ramsey | 21 June 2009 at 07:16
Hi Etherealmind:
The statement you refer to is in the terms of use for KivaFriends.org, not Kiva.org. KivaFriends.org is a forum created by the Kiva community, for the Kiva community, and is not run by the staff of Kiva.org. I believe that the site administrator is working on updating their terms of use.
Best,
Fiona Ramsey
15. Etherealmind | 21 June 2009 at 08:48
Fiona
Notwithstanding, that is what I believed Kiva stood for, I use it only as an ‘in-place’ example and to show that I am not the only person who had this view. You violated a basic trust with your community. I will vote with my feet.
I will not standby while Americans gather round in a orgy of self congratulation and fund those who are, in fundamental truth, less worthy, less needy, and more opportunities to self improve. I felt that Kiva was part of awakening the narrow minded in America to rest of the world. It wearies me that, on average, American culture is so inward looking, so _unaware_ of the real world. This allows them to indulge in the ugliness of selfish indulgence and create a self-belief of helping their ‘fellow man’ …….so long as it is a ‘good American’.
I perceive this as a step down a new path for Kiva, One in which they pander to some audience that I don’t understand, and which they may not even be aware of reaching out to. It’s such an invidious idea it’s almost colonial. What next ? Will Kiva become a commercial entity because ‘it makes sense?’.
I haven’t seen anything yet that justifies the breach of trust. The lack of commitment to the vision is disturbing and what else is being planned so that Kiva can ‘grow’ ? Are they acting like an ‘institutional bank’ in spite of their mission.
This is about a failure of conviction, and seeming self-interest (whether real or not) in the ‘make america great’ fallacy. Where does it end ? I don’t know, and I won’t be a part of an organisation with promotes that vision.
16. Terri Cain | 21 June 2009 at 14:52
A couple of comments:
Microfinance in general and Kiva in particular is not a charity.
I believe that Kiva should only promote U.S. loans that CLEARLY would help raise someone out of poverty into the working class or out of the working class into the middle class. I agree that an architect is not an appropriate candidate for support.
That said, we do not have to loan to people in the U.S. if we don’t want to. I will not abandon Kiva as long as it continues to promote and extend microfinance in the more challenged and/or impoverished areas of the world.
17. Wes | 21 June 2009 at 15:58
If we take the argument that rich countries such as the US don’t need help or that they are rich enough to sustain themselves, we might as well close down all the food banks, shelters etc. and help the “poor” people abroad. We should also never lend a dollar to our friends, because they are “rich.”
Like Jessica says Poverty is Poverty. At times with the economic crunch and lending is tight, it makes those that already face poverty an even tougher challenge. If you believe someone should not receive funding, don’t do so and support others. If you find someone is worthy of funding, do so. Kudos to Kiva for giving more people more options and the choice to choose who we help fund!
18. katiekiva7 | 21 June 2009 at 18:12
Nice post John, good points. Thanks for giving a fresh perspective on these topics.
On whichever side people stand, I hope that they put their money where their mouths are and make their vote know in a productive manner through how they lend.
I’m excited to have both US and global loans in my portfolio!
19. Sarah Forbes KF6/7/8 | 22 June 2009 at 01:52
Excellent post John, it is really good to hear how a Field Partner views this step and how they feel it affects them. The debate rages on, I’m sure, but I for one support Kiva’s step into loans in the US.
The loan limit here at BRAC Tanzania does not really have an effect on which of the loans they are able to post, as the majority of our microfinance loans are quite small (normally about 200usd). However, I know that at my last partner in Kenya, K-MET, the loan limit meant that some of the doctors and clinic owners were not eligible for the larger loans necessary for certain medical equipment, like ultrasound machines. K-MET found the money for these loans elsewhere, but I think that reviewing the Kiva loan limit would definitely be something that they would be interested in and that the medical community there would benefit from.
20. lethalsheethal | 22 June 2009 at 08:13
I think giving lenders a choice and potentially expanding the pool of borrowers is a good thing.
I’m not sure this is the case anymore, but I remember at one time Kiva had a hard time keeping up with the number of people who wanted to lend.
When I interviewed several small business owners in my neighborhood for my Kiva Fellows application, I found that some used creative financing (friends, family, the past business owner) to build their businesses because they couldn’t get traditional loans.
Since banks are not functioning properly and people are cautious to invest in the equities market, why not allow people to choose to help their neighbors if they want?
21. RobC | 22 June 2009 at 11:01
It’s a myth that there is a zero sum game going on. How many Kiva loans have expired unfunded on the site? It’s extremely rare.
The fortunately reality is that many MFIs are constrained by their ability to post loans – not any lack of funding. I see no evidence that the presence of US loans has caused loans from other nations to go unfunded.
22. Teresa | 22 June 2009 at 11:55
I really enjoyed reading your blog and all the comments, but what I enjoyed more was your previous blog about Maxima MFI in Cambodia lending to a US Kiva borrower. I believe that simply turns micro-finance on its head, and the concept of “poverty”.
This world with its made-up political boundries is small, and when one of us hurts all of us hurt.
I look forward to reading more.
23. Jeremy Frazao | 22 June 2009 at 13:12
John,
Great article. I look forward to reading more in the coming months.
I’m curious to learn more about KADET’s thoughts on funding caps. They’ve touched on an interesting issue and I would love to have a bit more from their perspective.
24. John Q | 23 June 2009 at 00:49
It is a shame that some see Kiva’s move into US lending as an “out” – a reason to cut back or drop micro-lending entirely. It hurts everyone when we choose to help none at all. To them I say good riddance. If your criteria for micro-lending is that narrow-minded, do everyone a favor and take your money with you on the way out.
The idea that US lending will have a measurable impact on lending abroad is a bogeyman. There are three types of lenders here in the States: those who prefer to lend outside the US, those who prefer to lend inside the US and those who lend regardless the location of the recipient.
Some of the members of the first group view Kiva’s US loans as a betrayal of the organization’s founding mission. To which the appropriate response is, “So what?” Members of the second and third groups welcome the opportunity to lend within the US. And it is really only the third group that would drive any change in lending habits. I just do not see this group lending disproportionately more within the US. But even if it did, again I ask, “So what?”
Any lending is better than one at all.
25. John Briggs | 24 June 2009 at 05:26
I’m thrilled to report a sentiment shift — yesterday Tom, the team captain for the (formerly) Pissed Off Lenders, changed the team name to Unhappy Kiva Lenders. Tom posted this on the team page: “I want the day to come soon when the team name will be “Delighted Again Kiva Lenders” but the step above in the name change reflects current progress.”
What impresses me most about all the brouhaha is how much Kiva lenders care, whether they’re pissed off or not — everyone’s heart is in the right place. It’s really a privilege to be part of a community of people like this!
@Etherealmind and Fiona: It’s true that Kiva’s decision to facilitate lending to borrowers in the U.S. means it has expanded on its original vision (“Kiva lets you lend to specific entrepreneurs in the developing world” — see http://media.kiva.org/20081009_Kiva_Introduction.pdf). However, Etherealmind, it doesn’t mean that developing world borrowers will be shortchanged at all. At this point, the Kiva funding pie is big enough for everyone, and it’s very rare for a loan to not be fully funded.
@Stiggle, Jessica, Thomas, Ian, Leah, Sundown, Joanna, Terri, Wes, KatieKiva, Lethalsheethal, and John Q: Yes! Kiva is all about choice, and poverty is a complex thing. Keep on funding borrowers as you so choose to.
@Greg: Elimination of poverty or enablement of business? Both, we hope. But much microfinance is done in the absence of business development and training services. I completely agree w/you that microfinance coupled w/appropriate bizdev training is best of all.
@Sharon and Thomas: Agreed — the Feds and other levels of gov’t in the U.S. can do better. Case in point: New Orleans, four years after Katrina. But if government won’t or can’t do it, things like Kiva can remedy that — more power, directly in our hands (wallets).
@Dagfinn: Interesting perspective, especially on Africa. Corruption stinks, where ever you find it.
@Megan, Rob, and Teresa: Right on! You all should be Kiva Fellows. Again.
@Sarah Forbes and Jeremy Frazao: Sarah, thanks for providing clear examples of where Kiva’s current loan limits can be a big drawback. Maybe Kiva could raise the limit, but enforce a mix so as to keep targeting small borrowers — i.e. 20% of fundraising for an MFI could be for loans between $1,200 and $5,000, but the other 80% must be for loans $1,200 and below? Or is that too much complexity?
26. Ross | 24 June 2009 at 10:58
It seems that Kiva’s foray into US lending was a marketing tactic that had unexpected consequences. Kiva’s research apparently did not reveal that there could be significant negative feedback. I don’t see any diabolical plot or subterfuge here, just an oversight and failure to adequately communicate with Kiva members. The whole issue has led me to be much more interested in Kiva in general and I think that is a good thing.
In thinking about Kiva in general:
• Isn’t Kiva’s need to increase lender base (reason of the US loan rollout) really a need to increase cash in circulation?
• How much cash is in circulation right now? What is the historical comparison?
• Is cash in play increasing or decreasing? What is the rate of change?
I have read all the posting on the ‘Unhappy Kiva Lenders’ message page. While I appreciate most of the pov’s, I don’t agree with many and I can live with that.
I am still lending via Kiva and expect to continue to do so.
27. Sarah Lawson | 25 June 2009 at 12:53
For anyone who doesn’t think there is poverty in the U.S., I recommend The Glass Castle, by Jeannette Walls.
This autobiography describes Jeannette’s life as a girl with itinerant parents who lives in West Virginia, New Mexico, and other parts of the U.S. It is an incredible personal story.
~Sarah (KF8, Benin)
28. Unilove | 27 June 2009 at 11:22
Yes, Sarah. Your post above is spot on. But the US loans are not to people like Jeanette. I think this whole controversy might have been avoided if the US loans were to needier folks, not just folks with needs. It would have been an opportunity to demonstrate the truth that the US has hurting and needy people also, ones that would open eyes and educate people with compassionate hearts.
I am all for choice. I like to choose. Bring on all the countries in the world! And let me choose who/when/how much.
29. Suwattana and Ross | 27 June 2009 at 13:46
Well, the issue is not whether loans have merit or not. Rather, it is simply that Kiva has changed its mission and is now lending in developed nations and in the US in particular.
Unhappy Kiva Lenders (formerly Pissed Off Kiva Lenders) wants Kiva to revert to its original mission.
30. Kieran Ball (KF6) | 28 June 2009 at 06:34
Excellent post John, a good way to give a new perspective to this issue.
I’ve read a lot of opinions on this from Kiva lenders in the US but I would REALLY like to hear more points of view from the “developing world” (such as your blog) as they’re the ones who should supposedly be pissed off, right? Maybe Kiva could do a scale of pissed-off-ness underneath the risk rating of each MFI?
Having said that, I may as well add my tuppence. Basically what Unilove said above – choice is good! I dislike labeling nations as worthy or not worthy of Kiva loans. There are plenty of wealthy people in Kenya who I wouldn’t lend to. And there are plenty of poor people in the US who I would lend to.
I love the circular nature of it. That’s karma baby!
Another point – while Mark the ex-architect doesn’t look like your standard Kiva borrower, his profile states that he hopes to build his business to the point where he can employ staff. This is surely the holy grail of microfinance! Many critics of microloans have found that economies need new jobs to be able to improve, not small loans to single parents.
I know that Kiva will keep a careful eye on whether large US loans are excluding smaller loans in developing countries.
In Kiva We Trust.
31. Kiva Fellows’ Blog Quarter 2 in Review « Kiva Stories from the Field | 30 June 2009 at 15:55
[...] Pissed Off Kiva Lenders, John Briggs KF8, [...]
32. Etherealmind | 1 July 2009 at 11:50
I first posted my disgust on 18th June. I remain as angry today as I was then and am convinced that nothing good will come from this. Nobody in America is needy, poor, or suffers from lack of opportunity. Nobody.
If you can’t raise a few thousand dollars yourself by performing a second job, or some other means, then you aren’t working hard enough, thinking creatively or plain desperate to find a solution. It just smacks of laziness.
I believe that for most Americans, given a choice to support Americans or foreign people will always support Americans. It’s the type of self-referential event that defines American thinking. That Kiva believes that this might increase the overall lending to needy people is a vain hope, and leads to the perception that they really aren’t about helping needy people, but helping selfish lazy people.
Every comment about ‘making a choice who you support’ means that you inherently support the selfishness of American society.
I should say, that I am not specifically anti-American. You could do this in ANY FIRST WORLD COUNTRY and I would feel the same. Any developed country has opportunities for anyone to grab hold of, and ‘live the dream’. You can have legal protection, law enforcement, and cultural infrastructure that lets your dream come true. In the third world, none of this exists. The decision to lend in America is a denial of this difficult truth.
I am disgusted. I am pissed off. I am gone.
I feel that Kiva has betrayed me. I promoted this to other people, and now feel that I have failed in my careful selection. I finally found a way to help people in Africa and it failed me.
Me and my money are out of here until the US lending stops.
33. Etherealmind | 1 July 2009 at 11:52
I forgot to mention, I boycott Nestle because they promote baby food products that have poor outcomes for children because breast feeding is better.
By promoting loans in the US, you are diverting attention from the real problem.
Yeah, so I guess its a boycott thing for me.
34. stephen | 5 July 2009 at 04:33
Etherealmind,
please do not push this too much against the wall, it is not necessary i believe. I really liked your thoughts here, and espevcially “Any developed country has opportunities for anyone to grab hold of, and ‘live the dream’. You can have legal protection, law enforcement, and cultural infrastructure that lets your dream come true. In the third world, none of this exists. The decision to lend in America is a denial of this difficult truth”
Micro finance enables people to grab hold of these opportunities as you put it.
I would greatly urge you to reconsider your position on quitting as a KIVA lender.
Stephen
35. stephen | 5 July 2009 at 04:37
Sorry I forgot to add,
I think there are babies who benefit from Nestle products because they have limited options.
In my view, there could be people in USA who need micro finance (through KIVA or others) because they have limited options in terms of sources of loan capital.
Steve
36. Kyle | 7 July 2009 at 12:47
The amount should not be dollar equivalent for all countries. 1,000USD to one country could equal 100,000USD in another county.
This ought to be kept in mind when the maximum is calculated per country.
That being said, the endeavor should be made to make the limit equivalent all around.
All countries ought to have a chance at these funds. To exclude a country is unfair. If a lender does not wish to lend to a certain country, that is the choice of the lenders.
37. N8 the GR8 | 8 July 2009 at 11:27
Hey if you don’t want to lend to the US, pick another country. I’ll give to developing countries because I believe I can have more impact per dollar, but who’s to say i’m right, and I appreciate kiva offering me a range of choice.
For the joy of canceling out any narrow (or maybe i should say ‘ethereal’) minds who are boycotting kiva for their expansion of mission, i hereby promise that, after years of yapping about how great kiva is, today i shall get off my booty and make my first kiva lends ever. and i bet it will be a lot bigger than ethereal’s ever was.
38. Etherealmind | 8 July 2009 at 11:37
Dear N8 the GR8
Feel free to head over to my page http://www.kiva.org/lender/etherealmind.
I look forward to seeing you post your page here so we can confirm your boasting.
Dropkick.
39. Unilove | 10 July 2009 at 00:27
Ethereal, you wrote: “I finally found a way to help people in Africa and it failed me.”
By you boycotting, you fail Africa.
There is no roadblock to you loaning to Africa right now except yourself.
40. G the empowered | 11 July 2009 at 16:00
While at first glance I was surprised to find that Kiva now offers micro-loans to people in the U.S. I think that far too many people are missing the point that both poverty and a desire to improve one’s standing is universal in all countries and I have both lived through extreme poverty as a child and have climbed out of that poverty not only because I availed myself to every chance I could but because several people believed in me and gave me a chance and also empowered me building me up when I could not. The end point is on KIVA YOU make the decision of who you want to help with a loan. On the subject of limits I do think that the U.S. rate should not be as high as it is when compared to other countries, granted things cost more but if you have to make due with less you get creative and look for all the opportunities that you can I think that in keeping with the current KIVA loan amounts $5,000 to a maximum of $7,000 would be more realistic.
Thanks for listening
41. Danielton | 16 July 2009 at 02:50
While I appreciate the fact the caps are low for other countries,we have to keep in mind that poverty levels are relative to society and may differ from one country to the other,because of different standards of living.For instance, a poor person in the US may not be considered poor if judged by the Kenyan standards because of the Government’s provision of basic services which the ‘poor’ kenyan may not access.The way forward therefore, is to work on specifics based on each country’s dynamics and conditions and reach an acceptable difference because $7000 vis a vis $1,200 is just too big a difference. keep up all!
42. Tom | 18 July 2009 at 13:36
It seems that Etherealmind has a more than a touch of anti-Americanism in his makeup. No-one who knows anything about the USA can make the statement that “Nobody in America is needy, poor, or suffers from lack of opportunity. Nobody.” He has obviously never been to America.
In addition, this statement: “If you can’t raise a few thousand dollars yourself by performing a second job, or some other means, then you aren’t working hard enough, thinking creatively or plain desperate to find a solution. It just smacks of laziness.” sounds exactly like the words of some of the more extreme right-wing radio talk show hosts in the USA who are always ready to denounce the victim.
43. etherealmind | 19 July 2009 at 03:24
@Tom
Spoken as someone who has never seen Africa or the Third World.
I was ‘lucky’ to spend nearly a year traveling through Africa, and observe the brutality of these peoples lives. For example, I once saw a young boy almost “necklaced” (putting a a tyre over his body, dousing in petrol and setting him a light) because he attempted to steal something. There were no police, no courts and no other solution.
Attempting to run a business in this environment is close to impossible, and collecting the funds to make a start requires a lot of connections to illegal groups which are dangerous, ruthless, and unreliable. In one country that I investigated establishing a business I would have required approval from the local government, but also the two local gang/mafia groups and the Russian KGB (still active even today).
America might have this problem in places, but it is by no means universal and indeed would be exceptional.
As I stated, I would oppose this move in ANY first world country. Choosing America stinks of arrogance because the founders are American. Worse, they chose the government of their own state. That stinks of sycophancy.
The public perception of this is badly done and must be reversed. No lending in America.
44. Unilove | 1 August 2009 at 09:37
Ethereal, you wrote: “I finally found a way to help people in Africa and it failed me.”
By you boycotting, you fail Africa.
There is no roadblock to you loaning to Africa right now except yourself.
There is NOTHING stopping any human being from loaning via Kiva to any entrepreneur they list. The only roadblocks are your own prejudices…
45. Dawn | 11 August 2009 at 17:08
Who is my neighbor? Any opportunity to genuinely help someone anywhere in any way we can, means we’re fighting injustice, poverty (of material, mind, spirit, or body,) inequity… and championing the unique individual. Us? Them? These don’t apply here. This mircrolending concept is relationship-based. You and me, together, connected by mutual interest. We both win when we live in liberty and can practice pure capitalism between us and not as representatives of a government, institution, or social system. Just people. Lend where you want to. It will make a huge impact in releasing human potential globally.
46. Pitbull Mortgage School | 20 August 2009 at 06:56
On September 3rd, inside the Rio Hotel – Las Vegas we are hosting the largest hard money lenders event this year.
Here are some of the topics discussed:
How to create an investor mortgage pool
How to position your business #1 on Google search engine How to create a residual income from your mortgage pool How to underwrite and fund your own deals How to lend and broker hard money deals How to take advantage of the REO market
Go to HardMoney or call 858 736 7788