Private capital valuations: where IPEV and IVS meet

Private capital valuation sits at a junction. Accounting standards define what fair value means; industry guidelines translate that measurement objective for private equity and venture capital; valuation standards govern how valuation work itself is scoped, performed and reported. The updated International Private Equity and Venture Capital Valuation (IPEV) Guidelines — published on 11 December 2025 and effective for reporting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2026 — make those relationships clearer than they have ever been.

What the IPEV Guidelines anchor to

The 2025 IPEV Valuation Guidelines keep their primary anchor where it has long been: fair value as defined under IFRS 13 and ASC 820. For general partners preparing fund reporting, and for the limited partners reading it, the guidelines’ job is to support consistent application of that accounting measurement objective to private capital portfolios — assets for which observable prices are scarce and judgement is unavoidable.

Accounting standards and valuation standards do different jobs

The division of labour behind that sentence was formalised more than a decade ago. Under the IFRS Foundation–IVSC Statement of Protocols, agreed in March 2014, IFRS 13 sets the principles for measuring fair value for financial reporting, while the IVSC maintains standards on how valuations are performed — with each body retaining sole responsibility for its own standards. IFRS 13 does not adopt IVS, and IVS does not define accounting requirements. The two operate side by side on the same number: one says what is being measured, the other disciplines how the measurement work is done.

Where IPEV acknowledges IVS

The 2025 edition includes a Valuation Standards section acknowledging the guidelines’ relationship with the IVSC. The careful word is relationship. IPEV does not adopt IVS, and nothing in the guidelines folds one framework into the other. Rather, the International Valuation Standards — covering scope of work, bases of value, valuation approaches, data and inputs, models, and documentation and reporting — address the conduct of valuation work generally, while IPEV addresses how private capital practitioners apply the fair value measurement objective to their portfolios. Practitioners who understand both frameworks can see where each one carries the load.

A shared line on automation

One point of explicit alignment concerns technology. In the 2025 Guidelines, the IPEV Board states that it concurs with the conclusion of the IVSC Standards Review Board on automated valuation models and AI. For private capital, where models increasingly assist with calibration, monitoring and more frequent reporting, that convergence signals a common expectation across both frameworks: tools may assist the work, but responsibility for the valuation does not transfer to them.

Reading the frameworks together

For teams building or reviewing a valuation policy, the practical question is which framework answers which question.

None of these frameworks competes with the others, and a fund’s valuation process will typically touch all three: an accounting definition of the target, industry guidance for the asset class, and a general discipline for the work. Knowing where each begins and ends is what allows general partners to answer their investors’ questions precisely — and allows investors to ask better ones.