“International valuation problems in national settings” was the theme for this year’s World Valuation Congress, held in New Zealand. Paul Gallimore reports from Auckland on an event which stressed the importance of improving mutual understanding in valuation matters.
More than 120 valuers, from 27 countries, converged on the University of Auckland last week for the fifth world congress. For the first time, this biennial event was held in the southern hemisphere, having previously visited Vancouver, Singapore and London since its inception in Cambridge in 1984.
Delegates were welcomed by Professor Gerald Brown, who had recently arrived from Britain to head the university’s Department of Property. After an opening ceremony by Sir Colin Maiden, university vice-chancellor, an introduction to the congress was provided by Peter Young, of Auckland’s Robertson Young & Telfer, who focused on the changes in public accounting practice recently introduced in New Zealand, which presage likely similar developments elsewhere in the world.
Young described how new requirements relating to the financial performance of local authorities had led to a “knee-jerk” attempt to value assets as diverse as city parks, sewers and roads. Arguing against the falsity of the belief that this led automatically to more efficient asset management, he contended that many such valuations were meaningless, especially as some local authorities had set 0% capital return targets on them.
Gray Nthinda, general manager of Malawi Property Investment Co, enlightened delegates to the pitfalls of valuing more conventional property assets in a state with effectively no property market. Using thought-provoking examples, he outlined problems which had valuers from more sophisticated markets scratching their heads.
0ne issue which provoked universal interest was valuation for property taxation, the subject of two of the main congress papers. Drawing from his experience in the state of Victoria, Royal Melbourne Institute of Tecnology’s Frank Blackwell explored the advantages and problems of site-value taxation. Despite its conceptual neatness, most delegates appeared unconvinced of its appropriateness on a more widespread basis, concluding that the valuation basis should generally follow the dominant form of market transaction.
A subsequent paper by Amy Lee, of Singapore University, described a more commonly adopted alternative, that of annual value assessment. Her address was a persuasive argument that her country’s system was coping with the demands of a rapidly expanding urban property-base. Singapore’s progressive adoption of a computer-assisted, mass-appraisal system struck a receptive chord with most delegates. Many attested to the efficiency of such systems, with no one seriously arguing against their utility.
The question of licensing valuers was covered in a paper by New Zealand Institute of Valuers’ president Alex Laing. Debate around the subject revealed different trends in different countries. In some, such as the United States, licensing is seen as a means to stimulate reform and promote professionalism. In others, such as the UK and increasingly, it seems, Australia, licensing is viewed by government as an unnecessary barrier to competition in professional services.
New Zealand appears somewhat unique in this respect. While it has a registration system, this is centred on the country’s Institute of Valuers. Though Laing argued for the retention of licensing, he suggested that it should be applied to regulate the profession as a whole, rather than an individual society.
Ex-Lands Tribunal member Bill Rees concluded the presentation of congress papers with an examination of the valuer’s role in the resolution of disputes, especially when acting as expert witness. Rees’ advice contained an ample supply of tips, on both how to avoid the ultimately expensive business of a court appearance and how to perform if eventually “in the box”. His proposals for a system of cost-saving local tribunals to deal with certain valuation matters, complemented by a mediation/conciliation service for disputes, received wide support.
As well as “headline” speakers, the congress has been augmented during its evolution by a growing number of workshop papers, representing a kind of “fringe” congress. In Auckland there were 13 such papers, ranging from studies of residential property markets to matters such as compensation and asset valuations, plant and machinery valuations, multi-asset portfolio studies and valuation education. These events allowed for increased numbers actively to participate in the congress.
Supplemented by a range of discussion groups on the main papers, this led to a conference in which delegates actually conferred, rather than merely attended.
A new feature in this year’s programme was the introduction of a practical case study, based on a thorny, real problem and reflecting the congress theme. For many delegates, it represented a return to student days, under the watchful eyes of congress organisers cum tutors Professors Philip White and Martin Hattersley.
At the end of four days delegates departed from the “city of sails” a little tired, but certainly wiser, and looking forward to the next congress in Canada in 1995.
