Influences on secured lending property valuations in the UK

A significant part of bank lending in the UK is secured on commercial property and valuations play an important part in this process. They are an integral part of risk management within the banking sector. It is therefore important that valuations are independent and objective and are used properly to ensure that secured lending is soundly based from the perspective of both lender and borrower. The purpose of this research is to examine objectivity and transparency in the valuation process for bank lending and to identify any influences which may undermine the process. A detailed analysis of 31 valuation negligence cases has been followed by two focus groups of lenders and valuers and also questionnaire surveys of commercial lenders and valuers. Many stakeholders exist, for example lenders, borrowers and brokers, who are able to influence the process in various ways. The strongest evidence of overt influence in the process comes from the method of valuer selection with borrowers and brokers seen to be heavily involved. There is some also some evidence of influence during the draft valuation process. A significant minority of valuers feel that inappropriate pressure is applied by borrowers and brokers yet there is no apparent part of the process that leads to this. The panel system employed by lenders is found to be a significant part of the system and merits further examination. The pressure felt by valuers needs more investigation along with the question of if and how the process could dispel such feelings. This is seen as particularly important in the context of bank regulation.

Influences on secured lending property valuations in the UK

A significant part of bank lending in the UK is secured on commercial property and valuations play an important part in this process. They are an integral part of risk management within the banking sector. It is therefore important that valuations are independent and objective and are used properly to ensure that secured lending is soundly based from the perspective of both lender and borrower. The purpose of this research is to examine objectivity and transparency in the valuation process for bank lending and to identify any influences which may undermine the process. A detailed analysis of 31 valuation negligence cases has been followed by two focus groups of lenders and valuers and also questionnaire surveys of commercial lenders and valuers. Many stakeholders exist, for example lenders, borrowers and brokers, who are able to influence the process in various ways. The strongest evidence of overt influence in the process comes from the method of valuer selection with borrowers and brokers seen to be heavily involved. There is some also some evidence of influence during the draft valuation process. A significant minority of valuers feel that inappropriate pressure is applied by borrowers and brokers yet there is no apparent part of the process that leads to this. The panel system employed by lenders is found to be a significant part of the system and merits further examination. The pressure felt by valuers needs more investigation along with the question of if and how the process could dispel such feelings. This is seen as particularly important in the context of bank regulation.

Accounting as interpretive framing

The study furthers our understanding of the persuasive and constructive aspects of accounting information. We consider it as a process of ‘interpretive framing’ in the quest for legitimacy - an attempt to justify decisions and excuse mistakes. We base our theoretical discussion on the premise that the picture reported by accounting information is an example of institutional reality and thus mediated by the social contexts in which it is constructed and interpreted. Accounting information is a matter of ‘the interpretation of interpretations’ - the provision of accounting information, which is already a result of a competitive interplay among prior interpretations of certain aspects of our economic phenomena, undergoes further interpretation by the recipients of that information. This notion applies equally to narratives and numbers. We challenge notions of rigor, accuracy and objectivity assigned to quantification in accounting and posit that numbers can be an even more powerful rhetorical device due to their image of being rational and ‘rhetoric free’. We illustrate our theoretical propositions presenting explicit references to the constructive and rhetorical aspects of financial reporting from Pacioli and his times (late 15th century) to the recent regulatory developments of FASB/IASB in 2013, i.e. from the rhetoric of double entry book-keeping to the rhetoric of 'fair value’. We acknowledge, building on these theoretical foundations, the inherent subjectivity of accounting information (influenced by perceptions and interests) without entirely denying however its informative functions. We illustrate the practical implications of this, in a situation where “shared and socially accepted” perceptions may be the nearest we can get to anything resembling a faithful representation of economic reality. The paper contributes to a broader understanding of how accounting information can be viewed as a social and humanistic construction, and challenges taken-for-granted assumptions about impartiality, neutrality and rationality in regard to the process.

Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: challenges, opportunities and recommendations

Systematic review (SR) is a rigorous, protocol-driven approach designed to minimise error and bias when summarising the body of research evidence relevant to a specific scientific question. Taking as a comparator the use of SR in synthesising research in healthcare, we argue that SR methods could also pave the way for a “step change” in the transparency, objectivity and communication of chemical risk assessments (CRA) in Europe and elsewhere. We suggest that current controversies around the safety of certain chemicals are partly due to limitations in current CRA procedures which have contributed to ambiguity about the health risks posed by these substances. We present an overview of how SR methods can be applied to the assessment of risks from chemicals, and indicate how challenges in adapting SR methods from healthcare research to the CRA context might be overcome. Regarding the latter, we report the outcomes from a workshop exploring how to increase uptake of SR methods, attended by experts representing a wide range of fields related to chemical toxicology, risk analysis and SR. Priorities which were identified include: the conduct of CRA-focused prototype SRs; the development of a recognised standard of reporting and conduct for SRs in toxicology and CRA; and establishing a network to facilitate research, communication and training in SR methods. We see this paper as a milestone in the creation of a research climate that fosters communication between experts in CRA and SR and facilitates wider uptake of SR methods into CRA.