We broadly support an approach based on considering the materiality of any previous involvement in considering whether these create a threat to the valuer’s independence. However, we do have some reservations which are detailed under “Other Points” below.
One significant omission is any guidance on how an interest could be deemed material or how a potential conflict may be actively managed to avoid an actual conflict, for example through appropriate disclosure. We reference the discussion on the identification of threats to objectivity, and safeguards that may be adopted in the IVSC’s Code of Ethical Principles for Professional Valuers. This may be downloaded from the IVSC website here.
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).
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.
