No: this change minute, non-transparent change sounds fishy...Mike

The assumptions made when analyzing investments should be transparent as well.

I don’t care to hide my fee as I will be very transparent.

.✅ Buyers still working with buyer’s agents✅ Most sellers still offering a buyer’s agent compensation✅ More transparency to buyers and sellersSure there were some changes, but I am seeing things are BUSINESS AS USUAL.Seller’s are still given the opportunity to negotiate all commissions (including if they choose to pay a buyer’s agent), and buyers are still given the opportunity to do the same regarding their agent’s commission

To anyone I've ever helped get started I've taught them that transparency is number one when you're looking to work with an agent.I started off as an agent and I used to HATE wholesalers.

.🔴 Overly optimistic projections: Unrealistic ARV (after-repair value) or underestimated rehab costs can signal poor planning—or worse, a lack of transparency.🔴 Incomplete or disorganized documentation: Missing detailed plans, financial statements, or timelines could mean the borrower isn’t ready to execute the project successfully.🔴 Over-leveraged finances: Borrowers with excessive debt or insufficient personal capital invested in the deal could pose a greater risk of default.🔴 Questionable property comps: Overstated market values or inappropriate comparables may mean they’re inflating expectations.As always, thorough due diligence is your best protection.

So in practice , accredited-investor-only investment has bigger risk/reward than public investment.First because public investment has its own transparency.

I also don't like that they're not transparent with their pricing or what the product does on their website. 

I have found PPR to be very willing to answer questions.As we both noted, PPR is not transparent regarding their fund composition.  

. - Sponsor is transparent and realistic.