上周四，美国金融稳定监管委员会（Financial Stability Oversight Council，简称FSOC）这个在金融危机后由美国多个银行业监管部门组成的超级委员会列出了他们认为最可能触发下一轮金融危机的一些风险因素。这张清单最令人吃惊的地方或许在于它的长度。
不过，我们在编制列表方面似乎有了改进。除了给出这一名单的美国金融稳定监管委员会，美国财政部(Treasury Department)也有一个新的研究部门,专门关注金融创新可能带来的问题。美国消费者金融保护局(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)详细列出了银行业务的高危领域，最近列出的是汽车贷款。几个月后，美国金融稳定监管委员会还将公布“大到不能倒”的金融公司名单。这些在行业内具有重要地位的金融公司如果有一家倒闭，就可能损害到美国经济，甚至可能引发另一场危机。
Too big to fail. Interest rates. Borrowing. Fire-sales. The Flash Crash. Risky loan deals. Libor. Cyber attacks. Europe. Japan. China.
Cattle plague was not on the list.
On Thursday, the super council of bank regulators put in place after the financial crisis put out a list of their best guesses as to what could cause the next financial crisis. Perhaps the most surprisingly thing about the list was how long it was.
That alone should be enough to rattle your faith in Dodd-Frank, the banking regulations that were passed in 2010. Nearly three years later, the list of things that could blow up the financial system doesn't seem to be getting any shorter.
What we do seem to be better at is making lists of risks. Beside the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which put out the current list, the Treasury Department also has a new research group that studies financial innovations for potential problems. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau details areas where banks could be ripping people off, most recently auto lending. And in a few months the FSOC is about to disclose the financial firms so important that a failure of one of them could hurt the economy and possibly cause another crisis, which is another list.
The question is whether all this list-making is helpful.
One of the biggest issues on yesterday's list of financial risks is too big to fail. The council's report says big banks may be able to borrow more and cheaper if there is an assumption that the government will bail them out if they get into trouble. That extra borrowing money could result in banks taking on excessive risk.
The problem is that the government itself doesn't seem to be taking this risk seriously. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has been mum on the subject. Other Treasury officials have tried to downplay it. Last week, Mary Miller, a top Treasury official, said there could be a number of reasons big banks get lower lending rates. They may just be less risky, which is of course why they ended up on the FSOC's list.
Rising interest rates, which also shows up on the FSOC's list, does seem like a concern. JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon in his recent annual letter to shareholders said that his bank was giving up a significant amount of income in order to protect itself from rising interest rates. If rates were to rise like they did back in 1994, Dimon said JPMorgan (JPM) could make $5 billion.
While it's on the list, regulators don't seem as concerned. The FSOC says that there does appear to be some reaching for yield and that a sudden rise in interest rates could causes losses at the banks. But it dismisses the risk by saying banks have more capital than they used to, which is true. But that still doesn't mean banks have enough.
The FSOC says they are also worried about the recent increase of issuance of riskier bonds in particular collateralized debt obligations, which are deals that package up leveraged loans and sell them off to investors. But they also say that CLOs seem less risky than they did before the financial crisis. That seems to ignore recent reports that say more than half of the loans in CLOscarry few protections for investors, which is higher than before the lending bust.