Who they are

The independent valuer is the party charged with providing the valuations on which a resolution action rests. The framework requires that this valuation be carried out by a person independent from any public authority, including the resolution authority, and from the institution being resolved, so that the figures driving the decision are not produced by the body taking it. Independence is a condition of the valuer's appointment, intended to give the resolution and any later legal challenge a credible, arm's-length evidential basis.

Where the urgency of a case makes a fully independent valuation impossible before action must be taken, the resolution authority may carry out a provisional valuation itself, but that provisional exercise must be followed as soon as practicable by a definitive valuation performed by an independent valuer.

What they value

The valuer's work spans the sequence of valuations the framework distinguishes. A first valuation informs whether the conditions for resolution are met, in particular whether the institution is failing or likely to fail. A second valuation informs the choice of resolution tool and the extent of any write-down or conversion, telling the authority how much loss must be allocated and how far down the creditor hierarchy the bail-in must reach. A separate, later valuation, often called Valuation 3, estimates the treatment each shareholder and creditor would have received in normal insolvency, which is the benchmark for the no-creditor-worse-off safeguard.

Because these valuations set the perimeter and depth of loss allocation, the valuer's assumptions, on asset values, collateral and the counterfactual insolvency outcome, directly shape who bears loss and by how much. The independence requirement exists precisely because those judgements are consequential and contestable.

The requirement that resolution valuations be performed by an independent person is in BRRD Article 36(1), which frames the valuation for the purposes of resolution and demands independence from public authorities and from the institution. The definitive and provisional valuation regime, and the ex-post valuation of difference in treatment underpinning the no-creditor-worse-off principle, are set out across BRRD Articles 36 and 74 and SRMR Article 20. Regulatory technical standards developed by the EBA specify the methodology and the criteria for independence.

Practical relevance for banks and investors

For authorities and banks, the independent valuer is what gives a resolution decision its evidential spine and its resilience to legal challenge; contested resolutions frequently turn on the valuation and its assumptions. For investors, the valuer's conclusions determine the practical outcome of a bail-in: the second valuation fixes how far losses travel up the liability stack, and the difference-in-treatment valuation determines whether the no-creditor-worse-off safeguard entitles them to compensation. Scrutinising valuation methodology is therefore central to assessing recovery in a resolution.