While regulators and policymakers continue to look for a way out of the maze of market chaos, the Financial Crisis Advisory Group is looking for some input to help shape accounting and financial reporting solutions.

The advisory group, formed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board, is asking for written feedback on a number of specific issues. It asks accounting and financial reporting experts to share their views on how financial reporting has helped identify issues of concern through the financial crisis, or how it perhaps has stirred unnecessary concern.

The group specifically is looking for input around an idea that is beginning to gain traction in some policymaking circles—the notion of permitting or requiring banks to adopt “through-the-cycle” or “dynamic” loan provisions that depart from current requirements in U.S. GAAP or International Financial Reporting Standards. In a kind of smoothing, banks would stash extra capital provisions during good times that would be used to smooth over loan losses in bad times.

FASB and IASB discussed the idea at a joint meeting in March, and now the advisory group wants to look at the idea more closely. It’s soliciting views on how financial statements should reflect differences that would arise from such an approach—whether through earnings, comprehensive income, equity outside of comprehensive income, footnote disclosures, some other means, or not at all.

The advisory group also wants to hear views on the extent to which off-balance-sheet issues have contributed to the global economic crisis. “Some FCAG members have indicated that they believe issues surrounding accounting for off-balance items such as securitizations and other structured entities have been far more contributory to the financial crisis than issues surrounding fair-value (including mark-to-market) accounting,” the group says in its request for comments. “Do you agree, and how can we best improve IFRS and U.S. GAAP in that area?”

Finally, the group also seeks views on if and how it should address the current mixed-attributes model, where some items in financial statements are reported at fair value while others are carried at historical cost, and how FASB and IASB should resolve “emergency” issues while still observing due process.

Comments are due April 2.