VALUERS’ FEES “The Fallacy of the tick-box Valuation Report” Roger G. Messenger BSc (Hons) FRICS FIRRV MCIArb (Hons) MIPAV REV Hon. CAAV RICS Registered Valuer Vice Chairman, TEGoVA Chairman of REV Recognition Committee Wilks Head & Eve rmessenger@wilks-head.co.uk

THIS WEEKEND REV TRV Valuation Report Content Quality AVMs

AVMs should not compete with the Valuer Flawed Accuracy Inappropriate Valuer opinion/subjectivity – part of the process

In re-educating the institutions that consider financial regulation The Banks The Clients WE ARE LOOKING TO PROMOTE QUALITY

We criticise AVMs – BUT we have also, as a profession, been producing short-form tick-box reports WHY?

CLIENT REQUIREMENT:- Is this a lack of education or really all they want – or all they think we are capable of? If we are providing that, we are NO better than an AVM and possibly worse.

We are more expensive than an AVM We are slower than an AVM We produce a figure – so does an AVM

If that is all we do in our tick-box, then our output is also flawed, we don’t deserve to give ourselves the quality badge and from a recipient’s point of view, we are not offering anything.

This is real – not just me! A criticism put to us in discussions with the Commission has been that a tick box report is no better than an AVM!

Context of Valuation Reports – REV and TRV Quality Fees will follow if Clients can see the added benefit

THE TICK BOX FALLACY We should not be doing these!

THANK YOU! Roger G. Messenger BSc (Hons) FRICS FIRRV MCIArb (Hons) MIPAV REV Hon. CAAV RICS Registered Valuer Vice Chairman, TEGoVA Chairman of REV Recognition Committee Wilks Head & Eve rmessenger@wilks-head.co.uk