PDA

View Full Version : Are Kiva (and other charities) misleading people?



seadog
07-22-2012, 09:05 PM
I recently started looking more and more into charities, but like most things i try to do my due-diligence. I liked the idea of Kiva from what I heard, sort of the "helping others help themselves", and "free- market" principles I agree with.

For anyone not aware, Kiva markets itself as you provide money for interest free loans to people in the third world so they can start businesses and become financially self sufficient. Sounds great.

Turns out though, that's not exactly how it works. Generally "micro finance partners" (third world banks) have already made the loans, and you are merely guaranteeing them. These loans are subject to interest rates of up to 100% or more. Kind of reminds me of CHMC. These banks can then make as rediculous a loan as they want, if they get paid back great, if not, well then it's guaranteed by me.

My problem with it, is that you aren't actually providing the interest free money to the people who need it. Rather its to some third world bank who turns around and lends it out to these people at (what I assume) are near market rates.

I understand there are costs involved, but I wasn't able to find any assurances that the savings in interest by the banks are being passed onto the end borrower, or are they merely charging market rates and keeping the difference as profit?

I get what they're doing, and to their credit they seem to be more upfront than other charities, but they still try and sell the "interest free loans" bit on the main page. I guess that's a better sell than "Make deposits at third world banks so they can lend it out at super high interest rates, and plus(!) there's a chance you'll lose your money".

Anyone who's lived in the third world knows it's hardly a bastion of efficiency. Corruption is rife, it takes 6 people to do the job of 1, and I'm sure those 100% interest rates aren't just going to administrative fees, but also padding a few pockets, which I have a problem with. While some people may be a bit better off, the cost to me : benefit to end user is probably a few percent at best.

-

Additionally I've been pressured in the past just walking along the road to donate the UNICEF or whoever else. I think they're legit, once had MADD knock on the door looking for money. I said no because I'm greedy, but looked into it more. I guess most of those people get something like 50%+ of everything they get. To me it just seems misleading. They're asking for donations to help out a cause. I just sort of assumed they were volunteers. But turns out their plea of "Help the children" is really just a veiled plea for "Help me".

It sort of goes hand in hand with the fact the the some of these charities' CEOs get million dollar salaries. Their ultimate mandate is presumably to increase money coming in, and increase money going to the cause. A million dollars more comes in on their watch, 980k get's spent on hookers and blow, 20k goes to Africa, from their perspective, they're doing their job well.

I think most people assume and sort of expect that the people making these requests for help, are being as altruistic as they're asking of you, which clearly isn't the case.

RickDaTuner
07-23-2012, 12:10 AM
If its too good to be true...

sputnik
07-23-2012, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by seadog
Turns out though, that's not exactly how it works. Generally "micro finance partners" (third world banks) have already made the loans, and you are merely guaranteeing them. These loans are subject to interest rates of up to 100% or more. Kind of reminds me of CHMC. These banks can then make as rediculous a loan as they want, if they get paid back great, if not, well then it's guaranteed by me.

Source?

ZenOps
07-23-2012, 08:40 AM
Charities tend to get around things, as do most smaller religious groups.

Back when interest rates were high (say 12%) They used to just setup a "fund" which would hold money for the people that they were sponsoring. After the first year, they would let go of the 12% to the people in need but kept the principal amount themselves.

7 years after that, they would slowly let out the "fund" to those in need so that every donated dollar actually did get to the people, but in essence they got a completely free principal amount with the additional benefit of any tax breaks, but still be able to legally say that they gave out "90% to 100% of all donated monies" (which is a legal requirement in some areas)

Charitable "funds" or "trusts" are usually more on the scammish side.

toyboy88
07-23-2012, 08:57 AM
Just to clarify a bit, it's not Kiva directly, but their "field partners" (aka MFI - microfunding instiution) that loan out the money (and set their own respective interest rates/fees).

Here's a link to see all their partners, and detailed information on each like interest rates, borrowing costs, default rates, etc. It also compares each partner to the Kiva 'average'.

http://www.kiva.org/partners

From the site, the "Average Interest Rate and Fees Borrowers Pay (Portfolio Yield)" is 35.82% (which it says is based on 2008 data). So I'm not sure where you getting the '100% interest rate' from?

As one of their stated principles are:

"Our Field Partners are free to charge interest, but Kiva will not partner with an organization that charges exorbitant interest rates. We also require Field Partners to fully disclose their interest rates."

So I'm sure any individual MFI charging ~100% (or +) would quickly be let go (when the average is ~35%).


The first 'answer' here also provides some insight/scope on the matter: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3515/is-kiva-a-scam

And another Kiva link with more info about their interest rates, which they even post "they're high":
http://www.kiva.org/about/microfinance#interestRatesAreHigh

ExtraSlow
07-23-2012, 08:57 AM
Also, huge charity events like The Weekend to End Breast Cancer, and pretty much every charity walk, run or bike are massively expensive. Up to 50% of the donations go towards jut running the event, and that's before the underlying charity pays for normal adminstration costs.

90% of all door-to-door charity solicitation is done by people who get a percentage. Same with most charity telemarketers.

Charity is huge business.

There are a few charities that do rely on volunteers for the fundraising, and who have low admin costs. Seek these out when making your donation so you can ensure more of your money goes to helping people.

CanmoreOrLess
07-23-2012, 09:57 AM
Looks to be too good to be true, bummer as I have given money to Kiva in the past:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-devine/a-microfinance-whistleblower-tells-the-painful-truth_b_1660765.html

The library has the book:

Confessions Of A Microfinance Heretic : how microlending lost its way and betrayed the poor.
Author: Sinclair, Hugh

seadog
07-24-2012, 01:20 AM
I'm not saying it's a scam, I'm saying it's a well-intentioned organization, but one where too many hands have access to the cookie jar.

http://www.kiva.org/about/how/more explains how it works.

Loans are made first. 30 days later after pictures and a story is done, it gets sent to KIVA, and after review goes to the website.

My problem here is that I assume the banks are lending at market rates, since there is a chance the loan 1) wont be accepted by KIVA 2) wont be backed.

That means the borrowers are in the same situation they would be otherwise, but the banks have a pretty good chance of having their risk eliminated here. It's a good idea, but to me it seems like the banks are by far the biggest winners here.

I said "Rates UP TO 100%" So average is 35%. You need to search one by one, so I didn't check all of them, but it didn't take much work to find some north of 60%. Regardless whether 100 or 60, point remains valid. They sell the idea you lending your money for free to these people. The reality is these people may pay 60% interest.

-

It's kind of like me asking my friend to borrow his car so I can drive my sick grandmother to the hospital.

Then after he agrees I head to the airport to run people into town for $30 a pop, and tell him, oh yah, my grandmother took a cab a month ago, so I'm trying to earn money to pay her back, but then in addition since I'm using a day of my time, I also need to make enough money to pay me for a fair days wage. Thanks for the car.

In my opinion there is a huge difference between providing something for good will to someone who honestly needs help, and providing something for a for profit organization. It's like for profit companies that are looking for volunteers. Complete BS in my opinion.

msommers
07-24-2012, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Also, huge charity events like The Weekend to End Breast Cancer, and pretty much every charity walk, run or bike are massively expensive. Up to 50% of the donations go towards jut running the event, and that's before the underlying charity pays for normal adminstration costs.



Which is incredibly annoying and quite disheartening when you have to pay a registration fee, plus raise a minimum to even participate.

seadog
07-24-2012, 03:49 AM
I guess the business of charity is like a lot of other things. You can probably do it cheaper, easier, and a lot more efficiently on your own. How does $40 for a 5km cab right up north remotely make sense? Why should I pay a travel agent $20 to go online and book my flight for me, and why should I give some person $20 for the sake of walking the other $20 of my donation down to the charity building.

I just assumed that the premise of a business (yes I'll be better off, but here's how you will be too- We'll all be riiiich!) was inversely true for charities (I'm asking for a donation, I'm giving up my time, and I'm asking you to give up some money, together we'll beat AIIIIIDS!).

I wonder how people would feel about charity (and how many know now) that the only person making a sacrifice in the whole chain of charity is the person at the bottom. Then the money goes through a few levels, each one taking something for the trouble, and the left overs go to the cause. I wonder how the argument would go with a CEO who got called on it "Hey this isn't a charity... I need to make a living"

Xtrema
07-24-2012, 11:18 AM
When you donate to charity, it's almost guaranteed only 20% get to the hands who need them.

Charity is a huge business.

ExtraSlow
07-24-2012, 01:16 PM
20% is a bad estimate. I don't have the list in front of me, but there are a few groups who do audits on Charities to see who gets the most of the money to the hands of the people who need it. I think even those "umbrella" charities like the United Way, which introduce anoutehr level of managment, and expense, still get over 50% of the money to the end user.

I do remember that the Calgary Food bank rates very highly. Their admin costs are something like 8%.

EDIT: Looked it up, the Calgary Food bank gets 94% of the money right to the hungry families
Charity Intelligence - Calgary Food bank (http://www.charityintelligence.ca/images/toppicks/calgary%20food%20bank.pdf)

Amysicle
07-24-2012, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by ExtraSlow
90% of all door-to-door charity solicitation is done by people who get a percentage. Same with most charity telemarketers. I used to canvass my community for the Heart & Stroke Foundation. I was an unpaid volunteer so I agree with you that you have to watch which charities are using their money wisely.

You mentioned in a further post about United Way. United Way Calgary keeps its fundraising & admin costs at about 11%. According to UW, the CRA considers 35% for fundraising to be an acceptable standard. http://www.calgaryunitedway.org/main/who-we-are/faq#q9

Definitely an eye opener that's for sure.