This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Preshlistana.
I'm removing the {{notability}} tag. The actual website might not be notable, but the article (despite the title) is about the organization, not just the website. As an organisation, I think it's notable enough and it has had a lot of recent media coverage [1]. Angela. 11:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest adding the most significant coverage to this article as sources. As it is, this page likely qualifies for the sources template. Erechtheus 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
searching for "kiva" goes straight to a page about Puebloan shelters; there's no link to a disambiguination page where someone could find kiva.org. I don't know how to make this happen but someone should....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.37.97 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for the heads-up, I've gone ahead and added a notice to the front of the Kiva article. -Elmer Clark 21:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The links at the end of the page appear to all be pointing to the "about" page at Kiva - it might be more helpful to have these links renewed/reviewed to the pages that actually hold the info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Do Good (talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone been able to uncover information that details the kind of interest rates that the microlenders charge the entrepreneurs who borrow the money? Kiva says they only work with microlenders that charge 'fair rates' but that's a pretty open-ended statement. I'd like to see just what constitutes 'fair'.
Cody M Wilson 12:16 06 February 2007 (UTC)
As of today, the average interest rate by all Kiva lenders is 14%. That might sound high, but in the world of micro-lending it actually is fair. Factors that influence the interest rate are the local interest rate, local prevailing commercial rates and the high cost of administration of the loans. These rates are typically from half to a third of what local lenders would charge ... if they can even get a loan. There are a number of good books about micro-credit, one with many statistics and references is A Billion Bootstraps by Phil Smith and Eric Thurman (ISBN0-07-148997-5) Brian 09:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)btball[reply]
I've just taken a look at the Kiva site and they are reporting interest rates according to the following formula: "The self reported average, annualized, flat interest rate in real terms charged by the Field Partner to the enterpreneur." Reporting interest rates on a 'flat' basis can be confusing. 'Flat' simply means that interest is charged on the amount the client borrows at the beginning, not the effective amount he has access to over the period of the loan. For example, if Sophea borrows $100 at 10% flat for exactly one year, she will pay $10 in interest. In the west we are accustomed to hearing interest rates reported on a declining balance basis. If Sophea pays $10 in interest on a declining balance loan of $100 over 1 year in the United States, the interest will be cited at 18% per annum. This 18% reflects the effective rate she paid on the money she actually had available. 'Flat' calculations always understate the true interest rate. Generally the flat rate of a loan is about 50-60% of the effective rate. The average rate for all Kiva partners (reported by Kiva on a flat basis) is 19%, suggesting an effective (declining balance) rate of about 32-36% a year.
I also happen to know Cambodia well, and the borrowers for one Kiva partner (CREDIT) are listed as paying an average of 11% per annum. CREDIT's financial statements are available on the MIX market, and for 2005 CREDIT earned $804,000 on a microloan portfolio that averaged $2,492,000 during the year. This works out a 32% yield per year, not counting losses resulting from late payments or write-offs. Most Cambodian MFIs charge between 3-4% a month on a declining balance basis and are very open about it. CREDIT I believe charges 3% (36% per annum) which is a good interest rate by local standards and would be consistent with this portfolio yield calculation.
Personally, I have no objections to such interest rates. The alternatives these borrowers face are generally far worse. Flat rate calculations may be illegal in many countries, but they are very practical as well. Record-keeping is far easier using flat rates and as long as the process is used consistently and not in a way that is intended to mislead, there seems little harm in it.
But if I were lending through Kiva, I would be a little disgusted to learn that Kiva was telling me my borrower was paying 12% a year, when in fact she was paying 30%. It seems we don't just need 'truth in lending' laws for consumer banks in the US. We need them for microcredit operators, too. In the meantime, for any Kiva borrower who wants to know, they should go to the MIX market and calculate the portfolio yield of the MFI they are lending through from their last financial statements. What they learn may surprise them.Brett epic 16:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brett, all good points. When I read Kiva's definition of interest rates, "The self reported average, annualized, flat interest rate in real terms charged by the Field Partner to the enterpreneur," I really don't have a clue how the rates actually are calculated. It alludes to several types of calculations (e.g., average, annualized, flat, real) without ever defining how they are calculated individually or collectively. Also, only slightly more than a third of the Kiva MFIs are listed at the MIX Market (http://www.kivapedia.org/index.php/Main_Page/MFIs) so your suggested remedy won't work all that often. Can you point to a "generally accepted accounting practice" or whatever it should be called for how MFIs calculate and report loan interest rates? RichardF 03:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"ALTERNATIVE 4 — Flat Interest: Same as Base Case, except that “flat” interest is calculated on the entire loan amount, rather than on declining balances, and is prorated over the four monthly payments.
"Compute Cash Flows: Total interest is 120 [1000 x 3% x 4 mos.]. Total principal plus interest is 1120 [1000 + 120], or 280 each month [1120 ¸ 4].
"Compute Effective Interest Rate: PV = 1000; PMT = -280; n = 4. Solving for i yields an effective monthly rate of 4.69%, which is multiplied by 12 for an APR of 56.3%." (page 6) RichardF 04:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking about investing in Kiva soon. One other thing to consider is that the borrowers are using the money to make more money, not for consumer goods for themselves. For instance a potential borrower I saw on their site wanted the money to buy yams which she would sell at her vegetable stand. Say she sold them in a week and made a 10% profit, which she reinvested in the next weeks yam supply. If I loaned her $500 she would have $550 in one week, $605 after two weeks and so on. An interest rate of 30% ($150) for the year doesn't look so bad. Steve Dufour 21:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just joined Kiva a few days ago, after hearing about it being a direct lender to enterpreneur, interest free loan microlender. Turns out they are quite (intentionally) misleading. Many of their microfinance institutions charge IN EXCESS OF 50% interest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.41.7 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Kiva organization does not charge any interest; the loans made by Kiva members are passed interest-free to the independent field partner indicated for each loan. The field partner charges interest; these interest rates are disclosed and are discussed in the relevant section. --Lenin1991 (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of 2017, Kiva and its competitors assess no interest. That makes the participation of individuals a purely eleemosynary act. Nevertheless, a look at the table that includes fees shows that the median effective interest rate (including fees) is about 30%. I'm sure that microloans are benefiting a lot of people, but it appears that the agencies and Kiva employees are doing quite well. Rhadow (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently be trying to update the interest rates section. While updating the table of field partners' interest rates, I deleted about half of the existing table as it was filled with field partners who are no longer active. It seems best (in my opinion) to keep only active field partners in the table, but if anyone thinks there are old field partners who need to be included, you can put those entries back in. I've added some more recent field partners, but there are many more listed on Kiva's website who are not yet in the table. They have 173 current active partners, not counting experimental partners, so it is probably too much work too include all of them. Rachel 519 (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing the historical payback rate of 100% into "almost" 100%; Kiva currently has a 0.35% default rate. @Cody M Wilson: the Kiva.org website now keeps running statistics about many things, including interest rates.
Ramonk 03:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC) 23:00 EDT, 07-Jun-07[reply]
Also it should be mentioned that there are many definitions of payback rate, some with a potential to reach a rate of over 100%. Which one is used here?--Asdirk (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, sorry for the error in my edit summary when tagging the article with {{notability}}, it does contain one reference not linking to kiva. Still, the concern is the same. I'd like to see some independent references for this article. --Dirk BeetstraTC 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the MIX Market reference I added establishes Kiva's notably quite clearly. I won't remove it, but I see no need for the notability tag here. RichardF 16:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tag has been removed. This issue should be settled for good now. RichardF 22:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clearly notable enough, and this is demonstrated in the article's references. Note that this is about sources/references rather than traffic estimates (e.g. Alexa). See Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria for more. Cheers --Chriswaterguytalk 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being bold and removing the extraneous comment that "Kiva" translates as "nice" in Finnish for mainly two reasons. 1) According to the FAQ on www.kiva.org, the name is taken from Swahili for "agreement" or "unity", so the incidental existence of the Finnish homonym is irrelevant to the intended meaning of the name. 2) The comment was, in any case, out of place. Should we include the FAQ's explanation of the meaning of the name? If so, let's find an appropriate placement for it in the article. Wilhelm meis 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea removing that. The French translation is irrelevant to the article. I think the Swahili meaning should be included in the article as this was the inspiration for the organisation's name, but I don't think anything more is necessary. 1manfern (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to quickly clarify, the english translation of 'Kiva' is more acurately 'agreement' and not at all 'unity'. The swahili for 'unity' is umoja a very different word with a distinct definition. So I think the article should reflect this fact. Okraden (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should have at least a brief mention of Muhammad Yunus and his influence on all organizations of this type. --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does he have anything to do with Kiva specifically? He's discussed in the microcredit article, and the Kiva article links to that. --Sushi Tax (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rated Low importance by the bay area project?! Whats with that?
Yeah, the definition of low importance doesn't seem right for this article: Subject is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia but primarily of specialized or local interest, not particularly well known or significant, or included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. This includes most high schools; most buildings; most neighborhoods outside of San Francisco; lesser-known natural areas, such as county open spaces; minor geographic features and aspects of natural history (such as endemic plant and animal species); most companies, organizations, and structures; biographies of less well-known Bay Area people, including most local bands.
What organizations offer a way for the public to support microlending similar to Kiva.org? Can we cross-reference them in this article?
Nick Levinson (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some other microlending platforms are linked in this article, but I will try adding a few to the 'See also' section. Wilhelm Meis(☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 20:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the current paragraph applies any longer and needs to be updated. Recent changes to the repayment practices of Kiva are basically that the recipient of the loan does not need to fully repay before the money is refunded to the lenders, and the money is not automatically deposited into a Paypal account. You can choose to withdraw that money to your Paypal account or redistribute it as a gift, loan, or donation.
The claim of "rampant fraud and theft" by AE&I is seems unsubstantiated in the cited link. It may well be true but the article in the link provided is more ambiguous. It seems to be that AE&I was certainly guilty of fraud and misreporting of both loan amounts and interest rates but the word “theft” is never used. I’m not familiar with the case and it seems that Kiva is sugar coating it. Does anyone know more about this?Jtbob (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know much about it, but about the sugarcoating it, well, it is on their website, so naturally they're likely to go easier on themselves than an outside source. The good thing is that they apparently had caught it quickly enough. Outside source would be good though or a direct quote.--RossF18 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be in the article, but putting it in the first paragraph seems a bit much. Maybe for a criticisms section or something, since it was only one of hundreds of lending partners they had, and putting it in the first paragraph, especially at the end of the paragraph, seems to give a negative first impression to an otherwise respectable nonprofit. 67.83.42.33 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the matter to a Controversy section and added a summary of the Kiva posting. I sense a desire to use POV language about the matter but I see no evidence to support words like "rampant". If there's an outside article it would be good to add it, but I've not yet found one. Webmink (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sense that the recent edits by Brett_epic are partisan, especially given his declaration on his talk page that he is a "Kiva-sceptic" and dubious about microcredit in general. This is not to say that including details of Kiva's practices is not appropriate, but the edit just made in the "Disclosure" section appears to lack purpose and be NPOV. I do not consider myself expert enough to go edit it yet (either to make it NPOV or to assert it should be removed). Would others help me understand the issue involved here, please? Webmink (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this section is dubious. First of all, it is unclear exactly what is being disclosed, and by whom. One gets the feeling that Brett_Epic is disclosing his own opinion that Kiva should calculate interest rates using a different system than they do. This doesn't belong here.0nullbinary0 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the section to "Interest Rates" since that is apparently what was being disclosed, shortened it some, and attempted to restore balance by including Kiva's response to allegations that the interest rates of its Field Partners are too high.0nullbinary0 (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in saying I think that Kiva should be using a different system for disclosing its interest rates than they do. As I noted in an earlier post on this discussion page, the issue is not that interest rates are high. Kiva is correct in saying that the alternatives these borrowers face are higher. The issue is that if the rate is 25% a month based on internationally recognized disclosure standards and truth in lending acts that are universally recognized in the developed world, it should not be reported as 14% to anyone. Kiva can't stop microcredit operators from engaging in this misleading practice in developing countries where standards are looser and consumers are not as well as informed as they are here. But if it is an ethical company it should come clean to investors about the interest rates that borrowers are paying and not try to distort reality. Investors are from the West and none of them know what a 'flat' interest rate is anyway -- so why is this standard -- which would have any Western banker in jail if they tried to use it -- is considered by Kiva to be an acceptable standard for using on its site?
Your changes are not acceptable. You are attempting to shift the issue away from disclosure to interest rates. While is true that Kiva is failing to disclose interest rates correctly, it is not the interest rates that are the issue. It is the way that Kiva is disclosing them. If you wish, I can rename the section 'criticisms' but the argument will stand as addresses an issue that anyone reading about Kiva should know about.Brett epic (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"addresses an issue that anyone reading about Kiva should know about" - By whose judgement? Wikipedia is not the place for recording original research or personal opinion. Explain at which locations this controversy is being explored other than Wikipedia and it will be much easier to work with you. Webmink (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least now I understand what you mean by disclosure. However, Kiva is not failing to disclose anything. At the beginning of the section, you actually quote their disclosure of how they calculate interest rates. Visiting the Flat Rate page, I note that there may be benefits to using this system in the developed world, but the question of what system is best is totally beside the point. This section is obviously--almost admittedly--a discussion of your opinion that Kiva shouldn't use the method that they've chosen. The Waterfield quote is a criticism of the flat calculation method, but he doesn't mention Kiva specifically. There's no source to date establishing that Kiva has been criticized for using the flat method anywhere but on their Wikipedia page. You accuse me of shifting the issue, but fail to state why the issue ought to be addressed here to start with.
Also, even if this section should exist to begin with, it's way, way too long. There's no way the "disclosure" section should be the longest one in the article. I think my edit should be restored, but I don't want to get in an edit war. Somebody else please take a look at this and make appropriate changes.0nullbinary0 (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should take the time to familiarize yourself with this. You could start with the references I've left in the article (almost the only arms-length -- non-Kiva -- references in it). These include Chuck Waterfield, an internationally recognized microfinance expert (Google him, if you're interested), the Truth in Lending act in the US, and its parallels in other countries, the Wikipedia article on flat rate finance and its further references to various experts in microfinance on this topic. How much more do you want? I think the onus is on those who want to remove the only adequately sourced material in this article to show why it should go, and the rest should stay.Brett epic (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're replying to me, you're missing the point of my comment. I'm not asserting whether or not you are making correct arguments; I'm asserting that Wikipedia is a place to reflect the discussion about Kiva that is happening elsewhere, not the place to initiate or conduct that discussion, as you appear to be doing. If you provide links to that learned discussion about Kiva that's being conducted elsewhere you improve the article. If you use the Wikipedia Kiva article as the place to attempt to conduct the discussion itself, your comments are misplaced. I am thus asking you to point to the location of the argument that's specifically about Kiva that's happening elsewhere. Webmink (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a helpful link to the bottom of the article -- to the global initiative "Microfinance Transparency". Their vision is "a Microfinance industry operating with healthy free market conditions where consumers and other stakeholders can make informed decisions." Consumers are borrowers and Kiva investors definitely rank high on the list of 'other stakeholders'. Interestingly, Matt Flannery has signed their joint declaration. Perhaps it's time he started to walk his talk?Brett epic (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Brett epic has declined to respond to the criticisms by Webmink and myself, I have restored my original edit. I believe this fairly presents the fact that flat interest rates have been criticized, while also including Kiva's explanation of why they report interest the way they do. The section as initially written is biased original research, addressing a criticism of Kiva that hasn't appeared anywhere except on this page. It also unfairly assumes that flat interest rates are always bad and dishonest, although if you just look at the Flat Rate page it is evident that this method has both pros and cons. Four important points: 1) Kiva hasn't failed to disclose anything--they say right there on the page what method of calculation they use; 2) The notion that flat interest rates are always dishonest is controversial and shouldn't be presented as a fact; 3) Nobody but Brett epic, a self-proclaimed microfinance-skeptic, has criticized Kiva for this; 4) There's no excuse for this being the longest section of the whole article.0nullbinary0 (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Brett epic edits are just pathetic. He is just trying to create some artifical controversy. 1 On M. Yunus' opinion, Kiva is never mentionned, so I don't think it is adequate to post it here. 2 On loans default, it is not a controvery at all, it is what happen when you lend to some organizations. Please provide a source quoting it as "controversy" because for now, this point of view are totally corresponding to original research. Poppy (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 0nullbinary0: Unfortunately for censors of all types, Wikipedia keeps material that has been arbitrarily reverted. To refresh your memory, I reproduce what you reverted today below (with the key points you (Kiva?) are clumsily attempting to censor in italics).
Flat rate calculations, which are based on the amount of money the borrower receives at the beginning of the loan rather the average amount the borrow has access to during the loan, have been outlawed in developed countries (see for example the Truth in Lending Act).
Truth in lending laws require interest rates to be disclosed using the declining balance method of calculation. Truth in lending laws also require additional charges and fees that borrowers must pay to access their loans to be added to the disclosed APR. Many microcredit institutions charge 2-4% 'administration' or 'origination' fees, often on loans as short as a few months. Although these fees can significantly increase the actual cost of borrowing, Kiva does not include them in its quoted interest rates.
Because flat rates are charged as a fixed fraction of the money borrowed rather than as a fraction of the declining amount actually in use, pre-payments by borrowers don't result in a reduction in total interest. Instead, pre-payments further drive up the borrower's APR and reduce her incentive to pre-pay. These distortions in incentives are particularly problematic for microentrepreneurs, whose livelihoods depend on effective and timely rotation of their working capital."
It is not clear what you consider to violate NPOV in these words. They are simple statements of fact that can be gleaned from any primary finance textbook or primer on truth in lending laws. It is also obvious that they are not a criticism of Kiva's interest rates per se, and a response by Kiva that its interest rates are not excessive is irrelevant.
I am sorry I did not respond to the comment you and Webmink made on March 15th. It seemed that your comments were not a substantive effort to address the points I'd raised, but since you apparently believe they required a response, I will give you one now. Kiva is an on-line microcredit lending platform. By its own admission, it is passing through interest rates of MFIs based on a flat rate calculation. It is unnecessary to identify a third party source that specifically states that Kiva is doing this, because there are many sources (some of which I've provided) who state that if that is what it is doing, there is a disclosure issue. Furthermore, I have not stated that Kiva's practices are unethical. Readers can judge that for themselves. I am only stating that those who use Kiva should be able to understand what Kiva's interest rate calculations actually mean, since we use nothing similar in the West and such practices were banned here generations ago. To clarify this is encyclopedic and is not in any sense original. The article on ostriches on Wikipedia must point out that as a an animal classified as a bird, it is unusual in that it can't fly, and this feature has a variety of implications. If an organization classified as a lending institution calculates and disclosures interest rates in a way that differs from virtually every other financial institution the reader might be aware of, it seems equally evident that the article on it should explain how it calculates interest rates, and what implications that has for its users. Interest rates are arguably as important to a lending institution as flying is to a bird.
It is not at all clear why you think I am a microfinance skeptic. If you visit my Wikipedia user page, you will find that I wrote several articles on microfinance here, including solidarity lending, ROSCA, flat rate (finance) and microfinance. Since you insist on raising the issue, I am a microfinance practitioner who has spent the past 8 years engaged in building microfinance systems and institutions around the world. I have worked with several MFIs that have relationships with Kiva, as well as with many borrowers who deal with such MFIs.
I have been doing constructive edits to Wikipedia for a while. I do not conduct arbitrary reverts, and I don't get into revert wars. I am aware that when people practice non-disclosure on a systematic basis, such as Kiva is now doing, they may eventually start to believe that censorship is also justified, such as you seem to be starting to believe. I'll leave it up to you to start conforming with the norms and practices at Wikipedia, but if you continue this eventually I'll call in an administrator to restore order.
Fear of disclosure breeds censorship. Whether you are formally representing Kiva or not, do you really want that kind of rep sticking to Kiva? I have attached an NPOV tag to the whole article. I will try to reintroduce appropriate balance when I have time.Brett epic (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost the whole of the article violates NPOV. Someone could have equally taken the entire advertising catalogue of Sears department store and turned it into a Wikipedia article, but that doesn't make it one. Simply because the writers support Kiva for its social goals, does not imbue unbalanced reiteration of its marketing materials with neutrality. Almost every citation is to a Kiva publication or a statement of some sort produced by Kiva.
Please remove all references from Kiva (the organization) in this article, and replace with verifiable, third party references or remove the content supported this way altogether.Brett epic (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, which part of the content do you dispute ? If you don't have a specific part, please abstain to create a useless controversy (or better, improve the content/put the adequate banner). Poppy (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Brett is creating a useless controversy. If there is criticism of Kiva and indeed microcreditors in general it too belongs on this page. I also agree that the majority of this information comes directly from Kiva's website and a more diverse selection of sources should be used if available.68.9.130.10 (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kiva is now helping businesses in the USA; heard that on NPR. feel free to try to find an online article source for that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your intent and your rationale, but I wonder if removing the entire section was overreaching just a little. While I too would be inclined to remove the list, I think a few of the entries would be appropriate to be integrated into the articles prose, as some of these go to the subject's notability (such as the Bill Clinton and Oprah references). I wonder if these, the Socialedge reference and the Leena Rao acknowledgment of a notable controversy ought to be kept. I don't see any reason to keep the rest. What do you think about keeping these four, integrated into the article's prose rather than listed? I also think we need to integrate the Criticism section into the main body of the article, since Criticism sections can become troll magnets and thus are generally discouraged. Wilhelm Meis(Quatsch!) 03:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's why I posted the diff here, so they could easily be harvested and turned into prose. It was just a section that ended to be used for PR, in addition to the external links (which I also cleaned up recently). Please feel free to re-add anything as prose. tedder (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think I'll try to work those four in somewhere. I'll be a bit busy today, but I'll get to it some time over the next week. It's not #1 on my most important things to do on WP list. Wilhelm Meis(Quatsch!) 04:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interest Rate Disclosure -- Congratulations to Kiva[edit]
I am pleased -- very pleased -- to be able to say that Kiva has abandoned its misleading interest rate disclosures and has introduced a transparent and easily understood system. I'm not sure exactly when that happened, but it would be sometime after I last edited here in April, 2009.
Kiva is now reporting the interest rates paid by clients by calculating the portfolio yield reported by MFI's in their annual reports. This is the same method I used to introduce this issue on this page in August of 2007 (see below under "Interest Rates"). It fully accounts for the impact of flat rate (finance) calculations (which make rates appear far lower than they actually are) plus extra fees etc. (A 4% flat fee up-front on funds disbursed for 6 months -- not an uncommon situation -- can really drive up the APR on a loan, but the reported rate in Kiva's old system would not have included this).
Frankly, I got very tired of the goons who were tearing down my section on this every time I posted it in February and March of this year. They did not address the issue (disclosure), instead choosing to repeatedly reframe my point as a complaint about high interest rates (which I have never objected to), and then reverting my posts. But unlike them, I do not engage in either censorship or revert wars. It is pleasing to see that Kiva has understood the issue and responded ethically and intelligently -- albeit rather slowly.
Subsequent to my last post someone posted a section on the page that reports interest rates paid by clients. Some of those rates look realistic, while others definitely don't. In any case, Kiva doesn't report interest rates paid by clients any more, and it is hard to see how it is possible to either keep this section current or even access the relevant information, in view of Kiva's change in policies. I suggest that whoever is behind this either take it down or rewrite it to reflect reality and Kiva's policies. That can be done by explaining that they now report on portfolio yields and clarifying to the reader how portfolio yields differ from interest rates.Brett epic (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Janiston for doing the legwork on this. As a result of his calculations the average rate charged has changed from 23% to 37% now that Kiva's portfolio yield calculations have been included. And far more important -- honesty! The best thing is that Kiva is no longer giving MFIs a perverse incentive to report flat rates, as that won't attract Americans to invest in the 'cheaper' loans that are actually more expensive!Brett epic (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a section on interest rates charged to the person who receives the loan, but from the Kiva website it seems that the person who makes the loan in paid 0% interest.
Here is what it says exactly: "Currently, Kiva Lenders can only receive 0% interest on their loan. Kiva hopes to allow Field Partners to offer non-zero interest rates to Kiva Lenders."
If this is the case, it begs the question where the interest earned on the loan goes, I guess to their partner organizations. But more to the point, their about page says that:
"Kiva promotes:
Dignity: Kiva encourages partnership relationships as opposed to benefactor relationships. Partnership relationships are characterized by mutual dignity and respect.
This just isn't true if the person making the loan gets no interest in return and assumes responsibility for default on the loan despite being guaranteed not to profit from the loan. Although indirect and not a donation for tax purposes, the person making the loan is in effect donating the interest that would have been earned on a real loan as well as donating all of the money if the loan defaults.
Can someone who knows more about the organization tell me if I have correctly understood their website so that I can add some of this information to the article.
I'm not unbiased, but as I understand it people who lend to Kiva are the benefactors with that relationship being with Kiva; the end borrowers have their relationships primarily with the field partners, who may not be benefactors at all. That leaves the relationships between Kiva and the field partners, which I don't know enough to characterize. Because it's a chain of steps, I'm not sure I agree that if the lenders are charitable then the relationship with end borrowers is also charitable.
End borrowers pay interest to field partners, which finances their processing of loans, which, being small, are expensive on a per-dollar-loaned basis to process. We should assume that if lenders were paid interest that would be additional unless paying interest attracted so much more money that lending could be scaled up with a cut in per-loan-dollar processing costs that could lower interest without enlarging the principal of the average loan.
A partnership in this context means that two people have a business relationship. The field partners certainly have a business relationship with the person who receives the loan. However, the person making the loan is fundamentally a benefactor, as you acknowledge. Regardless of the market impact of paying the person making the loan an interest rate, your comments seem to acknowledge that the person making the loan is not part of a partnership. Are there any editors who disagree with this characterization? If not, I'm going to put that in the article.
As for the market impact, making it a real investment would certainly make me consider investing. As it is, I see it as a charitable donation that pretends not to be. Paying interest to the person making the loan might drive out some people who put in 25 dollars, but would see earning interest as uncharitable, but I think this would be far outweighed by people legitimately investing money as opposed to making a much smaller charitable donation. That's my 2 cents, I wouldn't put it it in the article. But I am looking for feedback about the nature of the relationship that Kiva creates because I don't think that is speculative and I do think it merits discussion in the article. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you're not using my comments above as your source, but only as a pointer to what you might find on Kiva's website or elsewhere or as a thought inspiration. My comments above were derivative and not primary sources in themselves, and some are possibly original inferences. I can distinguish, if you wish.
There is an organization that reportedly makes commercial loans in the market segment Kiva's field partners approach, and that does not do loan-sharking (at high interest) as prevailed before Kiva arrived. Unfortunately, I forgot its name or where I read of it. Possibly, a book titled something like The Bottom of the Pyramid or ... at the Bottom of the Pyramid, about major businesses selling to the poorest third (small 1-serving containers, etc.), might discuss it. Perhaps Grameen Bank could advise, as well; they're in more than one nation, e.g., U.S.
I criticize Kiva on other grounds, but I'm not sure you have so much a criticism of Kiva as a desire for an approach other than Kiva's. (Your comment about driving out the $25 lenders suggests you want someone to compete against Kiva.) No organization can manage all feasible approaches. It may help to link from the Kiva article to other articles (perhaps via a general-topical article or a category) about other organizations doing relevant work that you find.
Microlending helped people whom traditional lending refused to deal with. Whether we've outgrown that need, because commercial lenders are now willing and adequately located and capitalized, I don't know. A commercial international investment that pays you back interest and which you can call in (you don't mention the latter feature) may involve complexities of law that may make the effort substantially more expensive than Kiva's approach, and you may need to do legal research; or you may find a financial institution in your nation that, for a lower interest rate, will handle all that for you.
Thanks for everyone's edits with Kiva's interest rates. I plan to include some of the criticism that Kiva's faced regarding this interest rate. In short, Kiva does not charge the borrower any interest rate, however, their field partners charge the borrower an interest rate. Usually, that interest rate is what pays for the field partner's daily operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preshlistana (talk • contribs) 09:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"With microloans, women gain spending power and spend less on instant gratification vices like alcohol, prostitution, and drugs."
Where is the citation for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.50.195.57 (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering the same thing. I suspect it's a case of poor phrasing and the person who wrote that sentence was trying to say that women don't have to *resort* to prostitution to support themselves. Muzilon (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning is likely that men, in contrast to women, is more likely to use a loan for instant gratification, like "alcohol, prostitution, and drugs". Such a claim should be backed up by sociological studies, not on the male stereotype. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.70.84.130 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New Section RE Controversy surrounding transgender loan recipients[edit]
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.
The new content in this section states:
In the latter half of 2013, there was controversy amongst LGBT lenders on the Kiva forums, as the website listed some transgender entrepreneurs from El Salvador[37] and Peru[38] and referred to them by the wrong name and gender. Although the loan recipients were obviously female and one of the descriptions specified that the recipient was transgender, Kiva still referred to them using male names and pronouns for no apparent reason. This caused several lenders to stop supporting Kiva, regarding these incidents as blatantly transphobic.
There area a few things about this section that are not factual or are misleading. The author is being presumptuous regarding "right" and "wrong" gender of the borrowers in question -- presuming him/her to be right and the borrower profiles to be "wrong" without having any personal contact with the borrowers to understand their preference. Second, it i inaccurate to state that Kiva "referred to them" as the loan profile content is written and uploaded by Kiva's field partners, not by Kiva.[1] Last, there is no evidence or citation of lenders no longer supporting Kiva as a result of this "controversy" nor of the intent of those lenders (ie believing Kiva to be "blatantly transphobic") if they were to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.235.12 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claims made in the section are not accompanied by any references that allow them to be verified. Even if they were, I am highly skeptical that "controversy . . . on the Kiva forums" is sufficiently noteworthy to mention in the article. Evidence that I'm wrong about that would need to involve independent secondary sources. For the time being, I have removed the section as original research. Rivertorch (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the Design Director for Kiva and we are interested in getting the proper logo on this page. The current logo on the page is out of date and uses incorrect colors. As I understand it staff of organization (or company) should not edit a page itself so I'd like to request that the existing logo on the page be replaced with our proper logo located within this linked zip file.
http://cms.kiva.org.s3.amazonaws.com/kiva_logo_0.zip
It looks like the colours were indeed off, but otherwise the vectors are the same. I've updated the colours of the SVG to #4B9123 and #74B446, so it should look the same as the proper logo. Message me if it needs further fine-tuning (as I'm not watching this page). +mt 02:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Mwtoews, another Kivan here! Our current Creative Director has asked that we update the logo to the new vector and colors. I've uploaded it to Commons, would you be so kind as to update the page with the new logo?
This is the most updated logo for Kiva.orgGood$2bkivan (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Good$2bkivan, I've found the download material from https://www.kiva.org/design and have replace the logo with "Kiva logo classic (1).svg", which is the same as the .png version. Generally, SVG are preferred. +mt 03:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the lengthy section spotlighting a known competing organization, Zidisha from the interest rates section. The information is consistent with Zidisha marketing language and the editor IP is attached to a series of edits inserting Zidisha into other pages. Seems like clear COI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.188.179.148
A brief ..
Zidisha vs. Kiva Zip
this article is authored by the founder of Zidisha.
The information about Kiva Zip is taken from public sources.
Zidisha and Kiva Zip are both experimental web platforms
that aim to use person-to-person lending approaches to reduce the cost of microloans in developing countries.
How are they different?
I have just modified 6 external links on Kiva (organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Problems (that my edit has, I think, fixed) with the following:
1.
"...Flannery wrote on Socialedge.org- a blog site designed to connect entrepreneurs for social benefit,
...does this somehow help Kiva achieve its mission of connecting people to alleviate poverty? It's debatable. I think that allowing our partner to decide which loans to post without much interference is a good thing...
Problem: The referent of "this" in the first quoted partial sentence is missing.
2.
"...However, some have decided to continue to lend through Kiva, but do so in the spirit of Flannery's remarks. "Kivans Against Cockfighting Loans" was created ..."
I can't see how "the spirit of Flannery's remarks" (and the rest of the quote to which "remarks" seems to refer is: "... We can be paternalistic when we start imposing our moral framework upon societies half a world away. Cockfighting in Peru is legal and part of a rich cultural tradition. It may not be humane or palatable from a Western perspective, but that misses the point. Kiva, the organization, should not be making those decisions. Our lenders should be the ones voting with their dollars.") can be taken to indicate or suggest (or necessarily indicate/suggest) that a sub-group of Kiva should be created that excludes animal-harming borrowers.
--Philologia (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was an article in 2009 that Kiva poor communicated how its funding worked, but even the blog admits that the honest info was available. This issue was addressed a decade ago. Does this really belong in the first paragraph? BoosterBronze (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BoosterBronze Any recommendations on discussion or edits here (see my COI post and follow-up below)? Kivan111 (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that sentence, as it contradicts the article sourced — which was later revisited by the original author. Having this sentence in the first paragraph seems fairly indefensible re: neutrality.
If it's important to anyone that this particular incident be documented, it should be done in its own section (or a new section, for instance "Controversies") and properly cited. Michael.j.champlin (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COI request for edits to opening description[edit]
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first.
I lead communications for Kiva and am interested in updating the page to be more current. Knowing I cannot make updates directly, I'm utilizing this COI template and edit request wizard. I’m suggesting several revisions only for the opening description. Please bear with me as I have not made requests like this before. I've listed out each requested change, reason, and supporting reference separately per instructions on this wizard.
List of requested changes to opening description:
1.
What I think should be removed: headquartered in San Francisco, California,
Proposed text: incorporated in San Francisco, California and operating with a global and remote workforce with offices currently in San Francisco, Portland, Nairobi, Bogota and Bangkok.
Why it should be changed: Kiva is incorporated or registered in San Francisco (see source #2 in the Kiva page). As of August 9, 2023, 79% of Kiva employees are not based in SF-Bay Area and are remote or associated with non-SF offices.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1] Data on current employees can be attributed to Kiva representative (I'm not sure if this is adequate for Wikipedia).
2.
What I think should be removed: that claims to allow people to lend money via the Internet to low-income entrepreneurs and students in 80 countries.
Proposed text: Best known for its crowdfunding lending platform Kiva.org that lets individuals lend as little as $5 to entrepreneurs and small business owners around the world, [2][3] it also launched Kiva Capital in 2019 as a subsidiary of Kiva.[4] Kiva Capital is an asset manager that supports underserved communities with impact-first capital. By leveraging Kiva’s unique global lending network of financial services providers and social enterprises, Kiva Capital seeks to provide investors with deep financial inclusion and social enterprise impact. [5]
Why it should be changed: Ability to lend on kiva.org in the U.S. and internationally is verified by multiple research papers and reputable news sources (see below). Kiva.org is the best known aspect of Kiva. This type of description highlighting what Kiva is most known for and an additional area of focus, mirrors descriptions of other nonprofits like Wikimedia Foundation [6]
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Additional references supporting removal of previous statement and substantiating Kiva's claims of online lending. [7][8][9][10][11]
3.
What I think should be removed: They have been accused of deceptive business practices, misleading donors into believing their funds would be used for specific individuals and misrepresenting other aspects of their operations.[4 - see Kiva page]
Proposed text: Kiva does this by crowdfunding loans and unlocking capital for the underserved, improving the quality and cost of financial services, and addressing the underlying barriers to financial access around the world. [12]
Why it should be changed: Current text does not adhere to Wikipedia NPOV guidelines and provides “undue weight” in the “prominence of placement” in the opening paragraph. Proposed text gives wider context to how Kiva achieves its mission (not Kiva.org crowdfunding alone). See other nonprofit pages, e.g. Wikimedia Foundation for examples of placement of “disputes” and neutral placement. Lastly, per the previous section post by @BoosterBronze, the source is outdated. New posts cited below specifically provide corrections and updates from the author of the cited post and from Kiva’s co-founder (posted by the original blog author).
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Wikipedia references [13][14] References for "deceptive business practices" removal [15][16][17]
4.
What I think should be removed: and does not generally directly provide funds to specific individuals.[7 - see Kiva page] These organizations are charged fees by Kiva and borrowers pay interest on most loans.[8 - see Kiva page] Kiva is supported by grants, loans, and donations from its users, corporations, and national institutions.[9 - see Kiva page]
Proposed text: They also provide zero-interest loans directly to individuals in the United States. [18] [add paragraph] Kiva covers operating costs primarily from donations made by Kiva.org lenders, who can choose to make donations, separate from and in addition to loans. These cover more than two-thirds of Kiva’s operating costs. The remainder of costs are covered through grants, donations from foundations, corporations and other supporters, and from lending partner service fees. [19] Kiva never collects interest on loans and lenders do not receive interest from the loans they fund. [20] Loans disbursed through Kiva U.S. are offered at 0% interest and have no fees. [21] Most Kiva Lending Partners do apply interest rates to their loans to cover the high operational costs of microfinance and to provide additional services such as savings accounts, financial literacy training, and other support programs. [22][23]
Why it should be changed: The U.S loans addition highlights an important area of Kiva’s work. The source and information about operating costs is outdated and not as direct as the new source. The GiveWell source is outdated and a misleading characterization of Kiva’s “pre-disbursal” model. While most loan funds are disbursed directly to the Lending Partner facilitating them, those funds are related to specific individuals and repayments (or defaults) by those individuals are reflected in lenders’ accounts. [see sources 22 and 23 above]. Kiva's lending model is clearly outlined here. [24]
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): See citations inline above. Other external sources on Kiva U.S. [25][26][27][28]
5.
What I think should be removed: more than 1.6 million loans, totaling over $1.68 billion,[3 - see Kiva page]
Why it should be changed: Number of loans not cited currently on Kiva website (can update when we make future website updates -- expected early 2024). Loan volume on Kiva.org is currently $1.93B.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): See inline above
6.
What I think should be removed: Despite its size, independent review by GiveWell failed to find evidence that the organization produces significant social benefit,[10 - see Kiva page] with at least one partner supposedly vetted by Kiva earning high profits while having a very high recipient drop-out rate.[11 - see Kiva page]
Why it should be removed: GiveWell references are limited and outdated sources. Undue weight is placed on these references, in particular one that cites a single, former partner out of 585 total historical partners. See current research on Kiva’s lending partners and Microfinance impact in sources.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [30][31][32] See extensive list of direct sources in this article [33][34][35]
Controversial issues ought not to be resolved through the COI edit request feature, a feature which is primarily meant for COI editors to propose nominally controversial edits to be reviewed by a neutral third party editor. Edit requests involving overtly controversial proposals such as the ones proposed here are not recommended for use with the {{Edit COI}} template.[1]
The process of content dispute resolution needed here should begin with a discussion of the issues with local editors here on this talk page. To that end, the COI editor is invited to continue the discussion below.
If consensus is achieved, and that consensus is that the information ought to be removed and/or clarified in the article, the COI editor may then invoke the {{Edit COI}} template to have a neutral editor make those changes. If no consensus is found here on the talk page alone, the COI editor may then follow up by using any of the subsequent dispute resolution strategies listed under WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.
Thank you @Spintendo for the clarification on the use of the COI request feature. I did also need to update my username as my old username @kivacomms was flagged. My updated username is now @Kivan111. I will raise the issues here per your recommendation. Kivan111 (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
^"Template:Edit COI/Instructions". Wikipedia. 28 July 2023. Instructions for Reviewers: Do not insert major re-writes or controversial requests without clear consensus. When these are requested, ask the submitter to discuss the edits instead with regular contributors on the article's talk page. You can use {{edit COI|D|D}}.
Discussion on topics related to opening description[edit]
Per the reply on the COI edit request feature, I'm suggesting ticking through the topics I raised in that request. Again, bear with me as this is my first set of posts. I had to update my username from @Kivacomms to @Kivan111, so hopefully it's clear that I posted the previous topic.
Given the "Deceptive Business Practice" topic was raised already by @BoosterBronze, perhaps we can start discussion there. Here is the topic (reference links are from #3 in the COI post):
What I think should be removed: They have been accused of deceptive business practices, misleading donors into believing their funds would be used for specific individuals and misrepresenting other aspects of their operations.[4 - see Kiva page]
Proposed text: Kiva does this by crowdfunding loans and unlocking capital for the underserved, improving the quality and cost of financial services, and addressing the underlying barriers to financial access around the world.
Why it should be changed: Current text does not adhere to Wikipedia NPOV guidelines and provides “undue weight” in the “prominence of placement” in the opening paragraph. Proposed text gives wider context to how Kiva achieves its mission (not Kiva.org crowdfunding alone). See other nonprofit pages, e.g. Wikimedia Foundation for examples of placement of “disputes” and neutral placement. Lastly, per the previous section post by @BoosterBronze, the source is outdated. New posts cited in my original COI post above specifically provide corrections and updates from the author of the cited post and from Kiva’s co-founder (posted by the original blog author).
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Wikipedia references References for "deceptive business practices" removal
I'm not a particularly engaged editor of Wikipedia, but this characterization of Kiva as being "accused of deceptive business practices" clearly does not belong in the opening paragraph. I support removing it. Tweek (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a casual user without particular experience in the nitty gritty of maintaining strict NPOV, I'd also argue that the statement in question is not neutral to the extent that it explicitly misrepresents the article used as the source. I expected to find accusations of misconduct and found an analysis into why charitable giving trends towards this kind of deception, and that "What Kiva does behind the scenes is what it should do." Not at all in line with the "accusations" described in the opening paragraph of the Wiki article. 104.158.49.29 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Preshlistana.
Discussion required