1. 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

2. THIS WEEKEND REV TRV Valuation Report Content Quality AVMs

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

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

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

6. 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.

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

8. 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.

9. 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!

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

11. THE TICK BOX FALLACY We should not be doing these!

12. 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