Skip to main content

FCA Review of Private Fund Market Valuation Practices

Go-To Guide:
  • The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is increasing its scrutiny of private fund market valuation practices, highlighting the need for stronger governance, transparency, and conflict-of-interest management across fund managers.
  • Fund managers are expected to apply consistent valuation methodologies, maintain functional independence in valuation processes, and address gaps in ad hoc valuation procedures.
  • The FCA has emphasised the importance of engaging third-party valuation advisers and has reminded fund managers of the importance of ensuring the independence of valuers.
  • Private fund managers should consider conducting gap analyses and strengthening their valuation frameworks to align with the FCA’s expectations.

Background

The FCA has embarked on a level of engagement with the private funds sector not seen since the consultation and engagement exercises surrounding the implementation of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) in 2013.

On 26 February 2025, the FCA issued a letter to the CEOs of all asset management and alternative firms, setting out its priorities for the year and informing them that it intends to:

  • engage with the UK fund management industry in a review of the UK’s implementation of the AIFMD, with a view to streamlining certain UK regulatory requirements (i.e. after maintaining a post-Brexit status quo, the FCA is now finally considering how UK private fund managers and their affiliated entities should be regulated); and
  • launch a review of conflict of interest management within UK fund managers. As part of this, the FCA will assess how firms oversee the application of their conflict of interest frameworks through their governance bodies and evaluate how investor outcomes are protected. (Note that the FCA will likely expect to see actual living processes deployed to prevent conflicts at all levels of a fund’s structure, with the efficiency of those processes tested by UK managers).

Subsequently, on 5 March 2025, the FCA published its findings from its review of private market valuation practices (the “Review’s Findings”).

Context of the FCA Review

The FCA’s review stemmed from its concern that private market assets, unlike public market assets, are not subject to frequent trading or regular price discovery. This necessitates firms to estimate values using judgment-based approaches, which can pose risks of inappropriate valuations due to conflicts of interest or insufficient expertise.

Of course, private fund managers in the UK deploy a variety of different structures:

  • many of the valuation-related issues are more pronounced for open-ended funds that permit redemptions during the fund’s life, compared to closed-ended funds, where the true value and performance can only be determined at the end of the fund’s life when assets are sold;
  • funds that invest into a variety of assets, from relatively liquid ones (as is common with many hedge funds) to illiquid assets whose value may evolve as managers improve the asset (e.g. real estate funds and certain private equity funds).

We expect that the FCA will continue to focus on this area and will likely require all compliance teams across UK fund managers – regardless of their fund strategies – to conduct a gap analysis against the Review’s Findings. 

The Review’s Findings

The FCA identified examples of good practice in firms’ valuation processes, including:

  • high-quality reporting to investors;
  • comprehensive documentation of valuations; and
  • use of third-party valuation advisers to enhance independence, expertise, and the consistent application of established valuation methodologies.

Overall, the FCA found that firms recognised the importance of robust valuation processes that prioritise independence, expertise, transparency and consistency.

The Review’s Findings, however, also identified areas requiring improvement, particularly in managing conflicts of interest. For example, conflicts can arise between a manager and its investors in the valuation process, such as when fees charged to investors depend on asset valuations. While firms acknowledged conflicts relating to fee structures and remuneration policies, the FCA found that other potential valuation-related conflicts were inadequately recognised or documented. These include:

  • conflicts in investor marketing, where unrealised performance of existing funds may be used to market new funds;
  • secured borrowing, where valuations may be inflated to secure higher borrowing levels; and
  • pricing of redemptions and subscriptions based on a fund’s net asset value.

The FCA expects firms to identify, document, and assess all potential and relevant valuation-related conflicts, determine their materiality, and take actions needed to mitigate or manage them.

The Review’s Findings also highlighted variations in firms’ approaches to independence within valuation processes. The FCA noted that functional independence within valuation functions and voting membership of valuation committees are critical for effective control and expert challenge. Additionally, the FCA found that many firms lacked clearly defined processes or consistent approaches for conducting ad hoc valuations during market or asset-specific events. Given the importance of ad hoc valuations in mitigating the risk of stale valuations, the FCA encouraged firms to consider the types of events and quantitative thresholds that could trigger such valuations and document how they are to be conducted.

The FCA flagged the following key areas for managers to consider reviewing and potentially improving:

  • the governance of their valuation processes;
  • the identification, documentation, and management of potential conflicts within valuation processes;
  • ensuring functional independence for their valuation process; and
  • incorporating defined processes for ad hoc valuations.

Breakdown of the Review’s Findings

Governance arrangements

The FCA found that while most firms had specific governance arrangements in place for valuations, including valuation committees responsible for making valuation decisions or recommendations, there were instances where committee meeting minutes lacked sufficient detail on how valuation decisions were reached. The FCA emphasised that firms must keep detailed records to enhance confidence in the effectiveness of oversight for valuation decisions.

Conflicts of interest

The FCA expects firms to identify, avoid, manage and, when relevant, disclose conflicts of interest. The Review’s Findings identified specific areas where conflicts are likely to arise, including investor fees, asset transfers, redemptions and subscriptions, investor marketing, secured borrowing, uplifts and volatility and employee remuneration. While the FCA found that conflicts around fees and remuneration were typically identified and mitigated through fee structures and remuneration policies, other potential conflicts were only partially identified and documented. Many managers had not sufficiently considered or documented these conflicts, often relying on generic descriptions.

The FCA expects firms to thoroughly assess whether valuation-related conflicts are relevant and, if so, to properly document them and the actions taken to mitigate or manage them. This may include engaging third-party valuation advisers.

Functional independence and expertise

The FCA reviewed the extent to which firms maintained independent judgment within their valuation processes, by looking at independent functions and the expertise of valuation committee members.

Only a small number of managers clearly demonstrated functional independence by maintaining a dedicated valuation function or an independent control function to lead on valuations. Such functions were responsible for developing valuation models and preparing recommendations for decisions made by valuation committees.

The FCA noted that examples of good practice to ensure independence included establishing a separate function to lead valuations and ensuring sufficient independence within the voting membership of valuation committees to guarantee effective control and expert challenge.

Policies, procedures and documentation

Unsurprisingly, the FCA emphasised that clear, consistent and appropriate policies, procedures and documentation are core components of a robust valuation process. These elements ensure a consistent approach to valuations and enable auditors and investors to verify adherence to the valuation process.

The FCA found that not all firms provided sufficient detail on their rationales for selecting methodologies and their limitations, nor did they include a description of the safeguards in place to ensure the functional independence of valuations or potential conflicts in the process. The FCA also observed examples of vague rationales for key assumption changes, such as adjustments in discount rates.

The FCA stated that it would encourage firms to engage with auditors appropriately, by inviting them to observe valuation committee meetings, raising auditor challenges at those meetings and taking proactive measures of managing conflicts of interest involving the audit service provider. It also stated that back-testing results can help firms inform their approach to valuations, by identifying insights about current market conditions and potential limitations in models, assumptions and inputs and encouraged firms to consider investing in technology to improve consistency and reduce the risk of human error in valuation processes.

Frequency and ad hoc valuations

UK-based full-scope AIFMs are subject to specific obligations under the FCA’s implementation of the AIFMD regarding the frequency of valuations and these obligations vary depending on whether the relevant fund is open-ended or close-ended. The FCA noted that infrequent valuation cycles risk stale valuations, which may not accurately reflect the current conditions of investors’ holdings. This can lead to potential harm, such as inappropriate fees or investors redeeming at inappropriate prices. The FCA emphasised that conducting ad hoc valuations (outside of the regular valuation schedule) can help mitigate the risk of stale valuations if material events cause significant changes in market conditions or how an asset performs.

Most firms, however, were found to lack formal processes for conducting ad hoc valuations. The FCA urged firms to incorporate a defined process for ad hoc valuations, including defining the thresholds and types of events that would trigger an ad hoc valuation (such as movement in the average multiple of the comparable set, company-specific events and fund-level triggers). It found that most firms waited for changes to flow through at the next valuation cycle instead of conducting ad hoc valuations. Only a few firms formally incorporated ad hoc valuations into their valuation processes by having defined types of events that would trigger these. The FCA stated firms should consider incorporating defined ad hoc valuation processes to mitigate the risk of stale valuations.

Transparency to investors

The FCA emphasised that transparency to investors increases confidence in their decision-making around private assets and enables them to make better informed decisions. The FCA urged full-scope UK AIFMs to provide investors with clear information about valuations and their calculations and encouraged all FCA-regulated firms to pay close attention to the information and needs of their clients.

The Review’s Findings highlighted that most firms demonstrated good practice by reporting both quantitative and qualitative information on performance at the fund and asset-levels, as well as holding regular conference calls with investors. Some firms further enhanced their reporting by including a ‘value bridge’ in their investor reports, showing the different components driving changes in asset values or net asset values, helping investors to better understand the factor influencing valuation changes. The FCA noted that some firms faced barriers limiting their ability to share information with investors. These barriers included restrictions arising from non-disclosure agreements and concerns about the commercial sensitivity of sharing valuation models.

The FCA urged firms to consider whether they can improve investor reporting and engagement by providing detail on fund-level and asset-level performance to increase transparency and investor confidence in the valuation process.

Application of valuation methodologies

The FCA stressed that valuation methodologies must be applied consistently for valuations to be appropriate and fair. In its review, the FCA observed that while firms applied valuation methodologies generally consistently by asset class, there were instances where firms employed different approaches, such as comparable sets and discount rate components for private equity assets. While firms could reasonably justify the use of different assumptions, the FCA expressed concerns that these variations might impair investors’ ability to compare valuations across firms. Firms demonstrating good practice were those that employed another established methodology as a sense check to validate their primary valuation and confirm their judgment.

The FCA expects firms to apply valuation methodologies and assumptions consistently, making valuation adjustments solely based on fair value. It also emphasized the need for valuation committees and independent functions to focus on these adjustments to ensure decisions are robust and well-documented.

Use of third-party valuation advisers

The FCA noted that it is good practice to seek further validation for internal valuations through third-party valuation advisors, particularly after identifying material conflicts of interest, such as calculating fees, pricing redemptions and subscriptions, transferring asset using valuations.

The FCA found that most managers engaged third-party valuation advisers and discussed their controls to assess the quality of service and independence provided by these advisers. Examples of good practice included conducting an annual exercise whereby the firm used a valuation from an alternative provider for the same asset and compared the quality of valuations from both providers.

Firms that adopted good practices had considered the limitations of the service provided, taken steps to ensure the independence of the third-party valuation advisers, and retained responsibility for valuation decisions.

The FCA urged firms to consider the strengths and limitations of the service provided and to disclose the nature of these services to investors, including the portfolio coverage and frequency of valuations. Additionally, firms need to be aware of potential conflicts of interest when using third-party valuation advisers and should ensure that investment professionals are kept at arm’s length to maintain the independence of third-party valuations.

Next Steps

The FCA indicated that the Review’s Findings will inform its review of the AIFMD and will be taken into consideration when updates are made to the FCA’s Handbook rules. Furthermore, the FCA indicated that the Review’s Findings will inform its contribution to the International Organization of Securities Commission’s review of global valuation standards to support the use of proportionate and consistent valuation standards globally in private markets.

In the meantime, the FCA has said that managers should assess the Review’s Findings and address any gaps in their valuation processes to ensure they are robust and are supported by a strong governance framework with a clear audit trail. Boards and valuation committees should also be provided with regular and sufficient information on valuations to ensure effective oversight.

In light of the above, fund managers and other regulated firms in the UK performing key functions related to funds should:

  • consider reviewing the FCA’s findings and identify any gaps in their valuation approach, taking action to address deficiencies where applicable;
  • ensure their governance arrangements provide accountability for valuation processes;
  • assess whether their valuation committees have sufficient independence and expertise to make valuation decisions; and
  • enhance oversight of third-party valuation advisers and consider the strengths and limitations of service providers.