????大到不能倒。利率。借貸。降價出售。閃電崩盤。高風險貸款交易。倫敦銀行同業拆借利率（Libor）。網絡攻擊。歐洲。日本。中國。

????瘋牛病沒有進這份名單。

????上周四，美國金融穩定監管委員會（Financial Stability Oversight Council，簡稱FSOC）這個在金融危機后由美國多個銀行業監管部門組成的超級委員會列出了他們認為最可能觸發下一輪金融危機的一些風險因素。這張清單最令人吃驚的地方或許在于它的長度。

????光這一點就足以動搖人們對2010年通過的美國銀行業監管法案——多德-弗蘭克法案（Dodd-Frank）的信心了。這項法案獲準近三年后，可能摧毀金融體系的種種因素看起來一點也沒有減少。

????不過，我們在編制列表方面似乎有了改進。除了給出這一名單的美國金融穩定監管委員會，美國財政部(Treasury Department)也有一個新的研究部門,專門關注金融創新可能帶來的問題。美國消費者金融保護局(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)詳細列出了銀行業務的高危領域，最近列出的是汽車貸款。幾個月后，美國金融穩定監管委員會還將公布“大到不能倒”的金融公司名單。這些在行業內具有重要地位的金融公司如果有一家倒閉，就可能損害到美國經濟，甚至可能引發另一場危機。

????問題是列出這些名單到底有沒有幫助。

????上周四列出的金融風險名單中最大的一個問題是“大到不能倒”。美國金融穩定監管委員會的報告稱，如果假定大銀行遇到麻煩的話能夠獲得政府救助，大銀行或許能增加融資，同時降低融資成本。增加融資可能導致銀行承擔過多的風險。

????問題是美國政府似乎并沒有認真對待這類風險。美國財長雅各布?盧在這個問題上一直保持著沉默。其他財政部官員也試圖淡化這個問題。四月底，美國財政部高級官員瑪麗?米勒表示，讓大銀行能獲得較低融資利率的理由可能有很多。大銀行的風險可能低一些，它們進入美國金融穩定監管委員會名單當然不是因為這個原因。

????利率上升也出現在了美國金融穩定監管委員會的名單中，表明這個現象似乎確實值得憂慮。摩根大通(JPMorgan Chase)的杰米?戴蒙在最近的致股東年度信函中表示，為抵御利率上升沖擊，這家銀行放棄了相當一部分收入。假如利率像1994年時那樣上升，戴蒙表示，摩根大通能賺50億美元。

????雖然這個風險因素列在名單中，但監管部門似乎并不是很擔心。美國金融穩定監管委員會表示，收益率問題看來確實有一些深遠的影響，利率突然上升可能導致銀行虧損。但它認為風險不大，還表示，當前銀行業的資本金比過去增加了，這是實際情況。但這并不意味著銀行業已經有了足夠的資本金。

????美國金融穩定監管委員會表示，他們也擔心最近高風險債券的發行量增加，特別是將杠桿貸款打包出售給投資者的CDO。但他們相信目前CLO的風險看起來比金融危機之前要低。這種說法似乎忽略了最近的一些報告，報告稱CLO中超半數貸款對投資者幾乎毫無保障，這個比例高于金融危機發生之前。

????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.