i read the article; the way that the authors see the world is not the same as the way investors see the world. a quick review will demonstrate how different those worlds are:

first, investors don't actually look at returns, they look at risk-adjusted returns. when they look at compartmentos, they don't just see the profits...they see taxes, a culture/business environment they don't understand/is corrupt, they see the "heavy devaluation and inflation of 1995", they see a business model that hasn't yet been proven commercially, etc. and, perversely, they even see the risk of public backlash against them doing "too well" or the non-profit majority shareholders deciding to run things differently from how they would run it.

second, the article states that investors had other ways to capture profits on their investment beside dividends (via the IPO for instance). this statement is quite odd...finance texts, professors and practitioners all agree that the fundamental value of a firm's equity is the discounted value of the firm's dividends. if there are never any dividends, the company is worth nothing; if there are high dividends today and in the future, the company is worth a lot. ...so, all that is to say that there is no way to get a rewarding IPO price without the reality (or at least the promise) of impressive dividends.

third, the authors appear to have no problems with a high interest rate...provided the firm remained a non-profit and ALL of the profits remained available for making more loans. it would not appear that the authors have any worry about "usury" or being unfair to the borrowers (which would have been my concern). ...i don't quite understand a train of thought that says: "it's OK to be unfair to person A, provided that this unfairness helps person B." this would have been my problem with 100% interest rates; i'm surprised that it wasn't theirs.

forth, firms don't just issue dividends carelessly, they put a lot of thought into it. they should only pay out dividends if and when the return that the firm can get in their business is less than the return that the owners can get in some other investment. so, if compartmentos could make better risk-adjusted returns than their investors can get elsewhere, they should keep the money (all of the money) inside the firm.

fifth, investing firms and management have a legal responsibility (a fiduciary duty) to ensure that the interests of the people who invest with them are fulfilled; they are required to maximize everything according to their investors' desires. now, a majority owners can instruct the company to operate in any way they desire, so this could mean that the company pays no dividends/keeps all the interest for other loans. however, this is not a pathway to the BIG CAPITAL...this is a guarantee that the firm remains, effectively, a charity; big capital does not (and cannot because of their fiduciary duty) "invest in charities".

...personally, i think this all rides on what kind of error you are more comfortable with. are you (1) more comfortable charging less, raising a small amounts of capital and delaying growth toward new customers who need your loans? ...or are you (2) more comfortable charging a lot, raising lots of capital and hastening growth toward new customers who need your loans? ...with children dying of fully treatable diseases, i am more comfortable with option #2 than #1; development (as i view it) is about speed [subject to certain environmental and social constraints].