USA loans

[Guest]

.

[charity]

Here's the ones I was thinking of:  Two separate loans to a man and wife for what appears to be a very nice furniture store in Azerbaijan, all paid back now:

http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=5375&_tpos=11&_tpg=1
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=5378&_tpos=10&_tpg=1

There is later (pretty much after the others had ended) another loan for what appears to be the same store and a different relative:  
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=33492&_tpos=19&_tpg=2

But again, even in this case, it looks like they likely had quite a bit of collateral that the MFI could count on if anything went wrong.

[tomviolence]

new US Loan

http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=118043&_tpos=1&_tpg=1

There are some folks in the 4 day count down - Could this be the month ?

http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=104673&_tpos=1&_tpg=1

A $3000 loan in Lebanon / 17 months only 65% raised

[Australia]

I think the question whether the US loans are diverting capital from the non-US loans can be pretty easily answered in the affirmative.

Check the lenders listed on the US loans and the vast majority (I calculated 94% **) were existing lenders who were previously lending to the third world.

(** Yes, it's very time consuming doing this, so I only did a random sample of five US loans and extrapolated the results; I didn't count "anonymous" lenders as new lenders - it's possible they were but it cannot be determined one way or the other.)

[tomviolence]

I think the question whether the US loans are diverting capital from the non-US loans can be pretty easily answered in the affirmative.

Check the lenders listed on the US loans and the vast majority (I calculated 94% **) were existing lenders who were previously lending to the third world.

(** Yes, it's very time consuming doing this, so I only did a random sample of five US loans and extrapolated the results; I didn't count "anonymous" lenders as new lenders - it's possible they were but it cannot be determined one way or the other.)

and they way you could tell they were diverting capital, rather than adding new capital is ?

[wthepoo]

I think the question whether the US loans are diverting capital from the non-US loans can be pretty easily answered in the affirmative.

I still don't think so - apart from Tom's comment (and yes, I added new capital to lend to US borrowers) you cannot tell how many new lenders were drawn to Kiva by the US loans and the media presence they gave Kiva but then decided to loan to non-US-borrowers. And you also haven't evaluated (or posted about it) how many loans to non-US-entrepreneurs werde made by the (about) 6% of new lenders on the US loans.

Best wishes,
Wolfgang.

[Australia]

and they way you could tell they were diverting capital, rather than adding new capital is ?

Existing/new capital being diverted, is still capital being diverted. No?

According to YowieFreak: "the 'loans fully funded' amount also shows similar numbers to the previous months". So, with no increase in additional "new" capital, I'd say diversion was happening.

[Australia]

you cannot tell how many new lenders were drawn to Kiva by the US loans and the media presence they gave Kiva but then decided to loan to non-US-borrowers. And you also haven't evaluated (or posted about it) how many loans to non-US-entrepreneurs werde made by the (about) 6% of new lenders on the US loans.

Interestingly enough, I did notice - but too late in the labour task to count - a number of the 6% had joined up to a year ago, but had only just made a loan.

However, given YowieFreak's analysis, the total of funded loans has not increased, so I'm not sure there has been a significant influx of new lenders at all or at least new lenders making loans, or indeed, old lenders adding new capital to lend.

[wthepoo]

...new capital being diverted, is still capital being diverted. No?

Not if the new capital wouldn't have otherwise been used on other loans - I wouldn't have added these new funds were it not for the US borrowers.

However, given YowieFreak's analysis, the total of funded loans has not increased, so I'm not sure there has been a significant influx of new lenders at all or at least new lenders making loans, or indeed, old lenders adding new capital to lend.

Taking the relatively small number of US loans and their significantly higher amounts into account, for a noticeable diversion effect the number of funded loans should have decreased by quite a bit. Or were you talking about the amount of funded loans? (Sorry, I don't really follow the statistics.)

Anyway, the influx of new lenders has a potential long-term effect not necessarily assessable in the first month.

Best wishes,
Wolfgang.

[tomviolence]

Existing/new capital being diverted, is still capital being diverted. No?

According to YowieFreak: "the 'loans fully funded' amount also shows similar numbers to the previous months". So, with no increase in additional "new" capital, I'd say diversion was happening.

So buying medicine for my sick child is also diverting money from loans ? Paying my mortage, food, etc ?

Since I do not have complete access to all Kiva data, it is difficult to calculate where the money comes from and were it goes. looking at http://ahkun.org/kiva/KivaStats.php?view=total

      
   Total to Date   Delta 30 days
27-Jun   $78,900,885.00   $4,736,825.00
27-May   $74,164,060.00   $4,496,550.00
27-Apr   $69,667,510.00   $4,526,050.00
27-Mar   $65,141,460.00   

this could, of course, represent capital leaving Kiva – since I do not know the amount of paid off loans that is re-lent.

i.e., $1,000.00 of new money is lent to Kiva Jan 1st, total loans are now $1,000.00. Feb 1st, the $1,000.00 is paid back, and re-lent. The total lent is now $2,000.00 with no new capital.

This chart does show the amount (the delta) lent month over month, is an increasing amount. (Unlike example above, which shows a static amount). This does look like NEW capital coming in, but it is impossible to tell unless we have access to Kiva’s Paypal data. (or can calculate by looking at amount paid back, as well as any previously in accounts, subtracting what is left in accounts)

Once we had Kiva’s paypal data for last month, we could see where the new money went. I am willing to bet ANY AMOUNT of money, that the amount of new money lent through Kiva did not all go to US loans. Yes, I am serious, ANY AMOUNT you care to risk. And it is certainly obvious that there were not more than 4 million dollars of US loans, so that the absolute majority of funded loans went to non-US destinations.

[tomviolence]

to clarify my position, I am not a fan of the idea that US loans are destroying Kiva.

As posted previously in this thread, I do have a concern that the huge amount of loans (majority of them NON-US), could leave some loans unfunded. The http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses&action=about&id=104673&_tpos=1&_tpg=1 loan recieved 1/3 of it's funding in twelve hours compared to the 3 weeks it took for the first 2/3rds.

There are 426 loans in fund raising status now. The days of "Feast or Famine" might be over, but too much feast might be worse than famine, as the left over banquet food means loans un-funded.