expected cash flow approach for provisions. We know that we have not completed our work on provisioning. In issuing our proposals, we stressed the need to gather further input on issues regarding complexity, cost, and operationality, as we seek to develop a workable expected loss model. We have established an Expert Advisory Panel, comprising the relevant regulatory and practical expertise, to ensure operational issues are addressed. We expect these consultations to lead to a final standard for provisions by the end of the year. We recognise that in addition to an improved expected loss model, prudential supervisors may seek more discretion to have banks hold back more capital for unexpected losses. It is for this reason that the IASB is discussing the possibility of providing regulators with additional information to meet their prudential objectives -- without compromising transparency. Specifically, we have suggested to the Basel Accounting Task Force that an additional Regulatory Income Statement could be required. The exact content would be agreed between the IASB and prudential regulators. The statement adjusts reported Net Profit after Tax for items relevant to regulators. Within such a statement it would be possible to include a 'through the cycle provision' for regulated entities. Such a 'provision' could be used by prudential regulators to ensure a counter cyclical approach by making regulated entities build up an undistributable capital reserve during the good times to be used during the bad times. Similarly, adjustments could be made to remove gains resulting from modelled estimates (the level