The global banking community has some unfinished business on the regulatory front, according to a senior official at the Bank of England. The deputy governor for financial stability at the BoE, Paul Tucker, told delegates at the Oliver Wyman Institute conference in London this week that regulators had work to do on the treatment of gone-concern loss absorbing capacity (the allocation of capital in an insolvency), as well as the location of the capacity across diversified groups.Tucker said there also needed to be a rationalisation of the various agreements that cover international supervision.And, he said, regulators needed a regime of concurrent stress testing of banks' capital adequacy.Local bank chief executives and regulators have been saying recently that the industry needs a break from regulatory reform and an opportunity to implement all the changes that have already been put in place. They may not get their wish.Tucker said: "The current round of reforms will change the face of global finance for the better. But there will also be effects that have not been anticipated, resulting in a need for running repairs. "The work to produce reforms has also revealed conceptual gaps and flaws in the inherited regulatory framework that will, sooner or later, need to be addressed."The recent G20 Leaders Summit in Moscow called on the Financial Stability Board of the Bank for International Settlements to produce plans, over the coming year, for the level and location of gone-concern loss absorbing capacity in global banks.Tucker said: "Policymakers are engaging with the crucial distinction between those parts of a bank's capital structure that absorb loss as a going concern (namely equity) and those that absorb loss in liquidation."In time, the Basel Capital Accord could usefully be re-cast so that it has distinct components for going-concern and gone-concern requirements."That would replace what, to my mind, is the fuzzy distinction between… [the] terms common equity tier one, additional tier one, and tier two."Tucker said that another question was where group gone-concern loss absorbing capacity should be issued from. "Should it be regional or national holding companies, or operating banks or dealers? "This turns on the type of resolution strategy most appropriate for a particular group. This was not well understood when international banking policy was developed over recent decades."On International supervision, he said there appeared to be a disconnect between the various international agreements on banking supervision - the Basel Concordat, the Core Principles of Banking Supervision agreement and the Capital Accord."Each of these documents does an important job but none of them addresses the distribution of capital across a group," Tucker said."There is no rule that ensures a sensible distribution of capital across individual entities within a group."In a crisis, sovereign countries care about the international distribution of losses. The distribution of loss-absorbing capacity is crucial. Standard-setters should look into this."The question of how much capital a bank should hold is also still open, according to Tucker. "The minimum standard set in the Basel Capital Accord is just that: a minimum standard. There