The valuations of unlisted assets anchor everything from capital-allocation and risk-management decisions and regulatory reporting. Yet, despite the principles-based guidance of IFRS 13, ASC 820, and the IPEV Guidelines, day-to-day practice remains opaque and highly discretionary. A recent paper from EDHEC Infra & Private Assets provides the first large-scale empirical portrait of those practices.

Drawing on a global survey of 79 institutional investors and service providers, we document how market participants forecast cash flows, calibrate discount rates, set terminal values, and decisions on whether to revalue assets in response to market stress. The evidence reveals three systemic patterns. First, conservatism: 76% of respondents report selling assets at prices above their latest Net Asset Values, with typical premiums between 6% and 20%. Second, methodological fragmentation, respondents employ widely divergent approaches to critical inputs, from discount-rate construction to terminal-value models. Third, governance gaps, over 60% rely primarily on management forecasts with limited independent challenge, and just one-third adjust valuations during market turbulence. Together, these findings point to a persistent valuation gap that dilutes comparability, obscures risk, and weakens oversight in private-market portfolios.

We conclude by proposing concrete measures to tighten the link between reported fair values and market-clearing prices and to bolster confidence in an asset class that is increasingly central to institutional portfolios.