Comparison of International Valuation Standards

Version 1.1.0 (7 October 2026): corrections and clarifications; see the Journal's errata page (journal.valuation-engineer.com/index.php/vej/errata). Pages 147-195 of Vol. 1 No. 2 (formerly 137-185). Repaginated 5 October 2026: content unchanged; pages 137-185 of Vol. 1 No. 2 (formerly 133-181), following the version 1.1.0 corrections to the Foundations entries 000 and 007–010.Valuation practice is governed by professional standards, statutory requirements, assignment-specific rules, financial reporting requirements, and established methodologies. Real estate valuation in the United States is fragmented and lacks a single comprehensive layer of practice standards comparable to the RICS Red Book. While USPAP and IVS serve as primary frameworks, additional significant standards include the RICS Red Book, the European Valuation Standards (EVS), the Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (CUSPAP), guidance from Australia and New Zealand, U.S. federal land acquisition standards, and standards for business valuation and financial reporting. USPAP addresses ethics, competency, scope of work, performance, and reporting. However, detailed valuation methodologies are dispersed across professional literature, agency requirements, lending rules, statutory law, court rulings, and customary practice. This fragmentation underscores the need to distinguish among compliance standards, practice standards, methodological doctrine, and assignment-specific requirements. The appendix provides, for each relevant jurisdiction, the applicable valuation standard, the issuing body, its legal status, and its relationship to IVS.