Response to consultation on draft regulatory technical standards on independent valuers

Go back

Q2: Do you agree that three years is the appropriate period of time for the purposes of Article 4(5)?

We appreciate that a specific time limit helps provide certainty in applying the RTSs. However, we believe .that this must be linked to the broader discussion on materiality. Something that creates a material conflict after 35 months does not cease to create that conflict one month later. An alternative approach may be to require disclosure of involvements within the past three years both before accepting the assignment and in the published valuation report, ie extending the requirement in Article 4(8).

Q3: Do you agree with the possibility to task the temporary administrator as an independent valuer, subject to the condition set forth in the above provision [art 4(6) of the draft RTS]?

On balance we agree that this should be permitted, although this may not be the norm in all EU states. In many jurisdictions the administrator will be a natural person, not a firm. That person will need different skills from a valuer and both roles would unlikely to be capable of being fulfilled the same person. If an administrator is supported by a large organisation (as is likely) then valuation specialists from that organisation could fulfil the independent valuer role, although some may prefer separation of the roles to ensure independence.

Q4: Do you reckon there are other cases of where independence should be ruled out in any case?

No.

Q5: Do you agree with the approach outlined in the impact assessment and more specifically, with the elements included in the assessment of costs and benefits?

We agree with the approach.

Upload files

Name of organisation

International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC)