There are deals that are border line and the only way we would do them if we are compensated for the risk, and then there are very solid borrowers and deals that I know any lender would love to do so I price those accordingly to have the best chance to win the business. 

Does that cover worker compensation issues?

I tried to hire people to compensate for it while I learned what I could and usually it worked.  

We would love to buy someone local a lunch or to help out in anyway we can to compensate you for your time. 

So, your choices are (1) created an LLC and an Operating Agreement for the eight investors and utilize the general exemption for private offerings or (2) pay the greater expense of a Reg D offering.As for the set, compensation, etc., here is what we found works.1.

For the past two years, I saved 100% of my sign-on bonus that I got every month and an additional 10%-15% of my regular compensation. 

Even if the Tenant says there won't be an impact that doesn't mean there won't be one and that you and / or the Tenant shouldn't be compensated for it.

The issue is, the wholesaler doesn't have a good and binding contract because all of the elements of such a contract aren't there, at least when done the guru way, bug out clauses, lack of consideration, the other party has no clue of your plan so there is no meeting of the minds, what they have is a voidable contract.Now, you are representing your voidable contract as a good and binding one for which you want compensation, now you're entering fraudulent dealing.

Here's the quote from the Michigan statute:"Real estate broker" means an individual or business entity that, with intent to collect or receive a fee, compensation, or valuable consideration, sells or offers for sale, buys or offers to buy, provides or offers to provide market analyses of, lists or offers or attempts to list, or negotiates the purchase, sale, or exchange of real estate; that negotiates the mortgage of real estate; that negotiates for the construction of a building on real estate; that leases or offers or rents or offers for rent real estate or the improvements on the real estate for others, as a whole or partial vocation; that engages in property management as a whole or partial vocation; that sells or offers for sale, buys or offers to buy, leases or offers to lease, or negotiates the purchase or sale or exchange of a business, business opportunity, or the goodwill of an existing business for others; or that, as owner or otherwise, engages in the sale of real estate as a principal vocation. 

Since the decided case focused on whether the taxing entity had to provide an opportunity for the owner to recover any excess and not if that excess was sufficient compensation for the entity taking the property, I believe the valuation question is still open and is more likely to be in the specifics of the second case.