Some brand name not-for-profits pay surprisingly high salaries to their senior executives, some in the range of USD1M/year. It’s led me to believe that whilst n

Some brand name not-for-profits pay surprisingly high salaries to their senior executives, some in the range of USD1M/year. It’s led me to believe that whilst not-for-“profit” in the technical definition of the meaning, they are certainly run as “for-the-benefit” of their management. There are many which do not play this game - apparently not Kiva - and seem truer to their charitable purposes. Some will say: does it logically matter - if higher salaries win improved achievement of charitable purpose? The answer then is why not structure as a business rather than not-for-profit? Edit [additional point]: microfinance is a high cost, high risk business. Organisations at the sharp end of loan management need to charge interest rates which cover costs, including defaults, currency hedging etc. I find that fair enough. What irks me is a management hiding behind a not-for-profit status to enrich themselves without taking risk.