The International Organization of Securities Commissions has published its final report on the valuation of collective investment schemes, setting out recommendations aimed at strengthening the frameworks that fund managers use to price the assets held on behalf of investors. The report was released in early June 2026.
IOSCO said the recommendations build on an earlier consultation and address the full lifecycle of the valuation process at collective investment schemes, from governance arrangements and independence of the valuation function through to methodologies and the assessment of fair value. Together the four areas form what supervisors typically regard as the load-bearing pillars of a robust CIS pricing regime.
SCOPE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
The framework covers valuation governance, seeking to ensure that boards of fund operators exercise effective oversight over the pricing of scheme assets and are equipped to challenge management judgements. The report also addresses independence, an area where regulators have long expressed concern that in-house valuation teams may be exposed to conflicts of interest with portfolio-management colleagues, particularly for assets that lack observable market prices.
On methodologies, IOSCO's recommendations look to promote consistent application of internationally recognised valuation techniques across asset classes, including for less-liquid holdings where mark-to-market pricing is not straightforward. Fair-value assessment, the fourth main pillar, focuses on how funds document, review and evidence the prices at which units are struck for subscriptions and redemptions — the operational moment at which mispricing can crystallise into investor detriment.
BUILDING ON THE CONSULTATION
The final report follows an earlier IOSCO consultation on CIS valuation that gathered feedback from industry associations, national regulators and market participants. IOSCO's committees on investment management have flagged valuation as a repeated source of investor detriment when funds encounter stress, particularly in structures holding illiquid assets or exposures marked using models rather than observable prices. Recent episodes involving property, private-credit and other alternative funds have kept the topic near the top of the international agenda.
For national securities regulators, the recommendations are non-binding but influential. IOSCO members typically use such standards as a benchmark against which to assess and, where appropriate, upgrade their domestic rulebooks. In the European Union, the recommendations can be expected to feed into supervisory dialogues within the European Securities and Markets Authority and its network of national competent authorities, complementing existing rules under the UCITS and AIFM directives.
For fund managers, the practical implication is a fresh yardstick against which existing valuation policies, committees and independent price verification arrangements will be measured. The full text is available on the IOSCO website, alongside the responses received during the earlier consultation phase. National regulators are expected to communicate in due course how they intend to reflect the recommendations in their own supervisory expectations. Industry associations representing asset managers have historically engaged closely with IOSCO's investment-management workstreams, and their responses to the recommendations are expected to focus on the practicability of the governance and independence expectations, particularly for smaller fund complexes. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission's Investment Management Division has been an active participant in IOSCO's workstreams, and observers will look to see how the recommendations dovetail with the SEC's own ongoing rulemaking on fund valuation.