🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Phillips seemed anxious to hear what you had written (I read it
to him over the phone) and wanted to get the exerpt forwarded to him.
He said the piece hadn't been written yet and would need to go through
an editor before publication which wouldn't happen this week. I think
your questions gave him something to think about.

That said, I think you need to realize that there is nothing wrong
with having an 80% repayment rate (in other words having a problem) so
long as you are fixing it. But to say 95% repayment when it is 80% is
seen s false advertising and really feeds into the people who would
like to ee Grameen tarnished, and those people are out there
(competing MFIs, donors who have been slammed by you, journalists
looking for dirt, etc.)

What's worse, people who have praised Grameen (I am thinking of
columnists and other journalists who want to make a difference and
have written positive stories) or people who have funded Grameen (I am
thinking of Chip Raymond of Citigroup) may feel betrayed by the
perceived deception.

Again, there is nothing wrong with a problem, but there is something
wrong with looking like you are hiding it. For example, if I could
havesaid to Phillips that there will be an Associated Session at the
meeting in Puebla where Grameen staff will outline the problem with
repayment and what they are doing to fix it so that others might learn
from it, that would defuse all the potential heat. Do see what I am
getting at?

It's like comparing apples and organges, but if someone said to me
that six years ago there were 100 global RESULTS chapters in the US
and today there are 50, I would say, "yes that's right and can I send
you the e-mail I sent to the Executive Committee this week on one
proposed solution."

I will talk with Phillips again. 

I treasure our partnership. 

Best, 

Friend