How to Check Market Value Consistency in Reports

A report can contain a well-reasoned opinion of value and still create avoidable doubt if the figure does not reconcile across the document. To check market value consistency is not simply to search for repeated numbers. It is to test whether the valuation conclusion, the comparable analysis, the narrative and every calculation tell the same story before the report leaves your desk.

This matters most when time is tight. A valuation may have been revised after a late comparable, a changed assumption or a client query. The final figure is updated in the valuation section but an earlier reference remains at the previous amount. Neither point is necessarily wrong in isolation. Together, they invite a lender or reviewer to ask which conclusion should be relied upon.

What market value consistency means in practice

Market value consistency is the alignment between the concluded market value and the evidence used to support it. It includes the obvious checks: the figure in words matching the figure in numbers, the value stated in the executive summary matching the valuation certificate, and the correct value appearing in any sensitivity or security section.

It also extends further. The adopted rate per sq m should reconcile to the stated floor area and capital value. The adopted yield should produce the reported figure when applied to the sustainable market rent and relevant deductions. Comparable adjustments should support, rather than contradict, the conclusion. Dates, tenure and special assumptions must be carried through consistently.

A report may properly contain different figures. A vacant possession value, an investment value and a value subject to a special assumption should not be expected to match. The issue is whether each figure is clearly labelled, used in the correct context and reconciled to its own supporting analysis.

Where inconsistencies usually arise

Most mismatches are created during ordinary report production, not because the valuer has misunderstood the asset. A draft develops across inspection notes, comparable schedules, model outputs, lender templates and comments from colleagues. A single amended input can have several downstream effects.

Consider a multi-let industrial investment. The market rent is revised from £420,000 per annum to £450,000 after a lease review comparable is added. At an adopted net initial yield of 6.25%, the change is material. If the valuation table has been updated to £6,950,000 but the executive summary still refers to £6,500,000, the report contains two distinct opinions. If the comparable schedule continues to show an adopted ERV of £420,000, the reasoning is harder to follow even where the final value is correct.

Floor areas are another regular source of difficulty. A report may quote 2,850 sq m in the property description, while the valuation adopts 2,780 sq m after excluding a non-usable mezzanine area. That can be entirely justified. But unless the distinction is explained, the implied £ per sq m figure may appear inconsistent with the capital value and cause an unnecessary kick-back.

Lease details require the same care. An unexpired term of 8.4 years in the narrative, 7.9 years in the valuation model and a comparable adjustment based on 10 years do not automatically prove an error. There may be a break clause, a reversionary element or a different measurement date. The report needs to make the basis clear enough for a reviewer to trace.

The risk is often in the surrounding narrative

The valuation figure gets attention because it is prominent. Supporting statements can be just as significant. A conclusion that reflects a short marketing period may conflict with a standard marketing period stated elsewhere. A block valuation that assumes no cladding issue may need the relevant EWS1 disclosure identified where required by the instruction.

These are not cosmetic points. A lender's review team needs to understand the assumptions behind the figure without reconstructing the valuer's workings from separate sections. Where the report reads as one coherent document, the audit trail is stronger.

A practical method to check market value consistency

Start with the concluded figure, then work outwards. Read the report in the same way a lender-side reviewer is likely to read it: conclusion first, rationale second, evidence third. The purpose is not to repeat the valuation exercise. It is to establish whether the written report faithfully records the professional judgement already reached.

1. Establish the valuation basis and date

Confirm the basis of value, valuation date, interest valued and any special assumptions in every place they are stated. A market value as at 31 March cannot be supported by narrative that refers to market conditions at a later date without explanation. Similarly, a freehold interest subject to tenancies should not become vacant possession in a summary table by accident.

Where there are multiple values, identify each one early. Use unambiguous descriptions throughout. This is particularly useful in portfolios, phased developments and reports containing both existing-use and proposed-scheme analysis.

2. Recalculate the core relationships

A short recalculation catches a surprising number of issues. Divide the adopted capital value by the adopted area. Compare the result with the stated £ per sq m. Apply the adopted yield to the rent used in the valuation and check that it approximates the reported figure, allowing for purchasers' costs, rent-free periods, voids, non-recoverable expenditure and other stated adjustments.

The arithmetic does not replace valuation judgement. A figure may be supported by a discounted cash flow rather than a simple capitalisation. But the report should make clear why a simple cross-check differs. An unexplained difference between a stated 5.75% yield and a valuation that implies 6.30% deserves a closer look.

3. Trace the conclusion back to the comparable evidence

Check that the comparables cited in the final rationale are the comparables in the schedule. Dates, prices, rents, areas, yields and tenure details should match. If a comparable has been excluded or materially downweighted, the commentary should say why.

Then test direction of travel. If the subject is considered inferior to a comparable because of location, covenant or lease length, the adopted rate or yield should ordinarily reflect that judgement. There will be exceptions. A superior redevelopment angle or an unusually strong occupational market may justify a different result. The point is that the explanation and the numbers need to align.

This is especially relevant where one comparable has influenced a late revision. The evidence may be sound, but the final report should show the revised conclusion rather than a mix of old and new analysis.

4. Check report-wide references, not just valuation tables

Search every occurrence of the market value and market rent. This includes the executive summary, security section, valuation certificate, assumptions, sensitivity analysis, photographs or plans with captions, and appendices. Look for figures in words as well as numbers.

A £50,000 mismatch between the valuation certificate and the executive summary may be a simple carry-over from a previous draft. It is still a material contradiction for the recipient. The same applies to an outdated market rent in a lease commentary or a previous valuation date in an appendix.

5. Test the instruction-specific requirements

Consistency is not only internal. The report also needs to answer the instruction it was prepared for. Check the required marketing period, minimum comparable evidence, mandatory disclosures and any prescribed wording against the final draft.

Where an instruction asks for three relevant comparables and the report contains two, a strong conclusion may still be possible, but the position should be addressed rather than left implicit. Where an EWS1 point is relevant, its treatment should be consistent across the report and any risk commentary.

Using a second pair of eyes without handing over judgement

Manual review remains essential, but it is difficult to hold every figure, cross-reference and amended sentence in mind after several rounds of drafting. Confirmation bias is real: once a conclusion is familiar, it is easy to read what you expect to see.

A document audit can support this final review by reading the report as a whole and flagging figures that do not reconcile, conflicting dates, different floor areas, yield calculations and missing instruction requirements. The valuer decides whether each finding is material and whether the report needs amendment.

WriteUp applies this approach to draft RICS valuation reports. It reviews a report in one to two minutes and flags potential contradictions across market values, rents, areas, lease terms and comparable evidence. Processing is private and encrypted, with no report storage or use of report data for model training. It is a supporting check, built by a practising MRICS Chartered Surveyor, rather than a substitute for the registered valuer's review.

Make the final review easier to defend

The best time to resolve a contradiction is before the report is issued, when the comparable evidence, inspection notes and reasoning are still close at hand. Keep a clear record of material amendments, particularly where a revised comparable, lease detail or market movement has changed the conclusion late in the process.

A consistent report does not mean every number is identical. It means that differences are deliberate, labelled and explained. That gives the lender a clear route from evidence to opinion, and gives the valuer confidence that the report says exactly what they intend it to say.