FORTUNE -- 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 created after the financial crisis put out a list of their best guesses as to what could cause the next financial crisis. The most surprising thing about the list: It's length.
That alone should be enough to rattle your faith in Dodd-Frank, the set of banking regulations that were passed in 2010. Nearly three years later, the number of things that could blow up the financial system still seems way too high.
What we are better at is making lists. 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 and payday-like 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 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 CLOs carry few protections for investors, which is higher than before the lending bust.
The risk of slowdowns or recession in Europe, Japan, and China are on the FSOC's list as well, even though there is little U.S. regulators can do about that. The fact that Libor and other lending rates may be inaccurate is also on the list. The reason being that manipulation may make people more-or-less worried about the banks and the economy than they should be. But what we are worried about here is banks. The fact that Libor was being manipulated seems to be one of Wall Street's worst-kept secrets, so is any bank really being tricked by it? Also on the list: The risk that the fake Libor rate could disappear, giving banks nothing to trick themselves with. Go figure.
Other things that show up on the list - money laundering for one - are bad, but not really things that would cause a major bank to fail, unless there was a massive fraud. Widespread fraud, however, is not on the list.
But the biggest problem with listing the things that will result in our financial doom is that inevitably we get it wrong. The things that result in our financial doom are the ones we didn't see coming -- black swans. And while the FSOC does detail what could go wrong, they spend much of their time saying why it won't. Perhaps the best thing we could do is hop a time machine back to early 2007 (the pre-financial-crisis era) and ask regulators to produce a list of things that could cause the banking sector to blow up. My guess is the list would be just as dismissive.
This week Senators Sherrod Brown and David Vitter proposed a bill that significantly ups the amount of money banks have to have on hand to cover bad bets and soured loans. Currently, we are at 9%. The senators would like more like 15%. I can't say I am a huge fan of this. There are unintended costs, and there seems to be no limit to the thinking. (Why not make it 200%? That's really safe.)
But the senators' point and ones who support the measure is a good one. We don't know where the risks are going to come from. The only answer is holding more capital than we think necessary. Lists, however, give the impression that regulators and banks know what's out there. The first step in making our banking sector safer is acknowledging that this is impossible.
Wall Streeters say Obama's second term will be the death knell for small banks.
FORTUNE -- Do we need to worry about Too Small to Survive?
Now that President Obama has been re-elected, analysts, consultants and dealmakers have turned from whether Dodd-Frank will be repealed to what it means for banks now that it's likely here to stay. The overwhelming conclusion: Thousands of small banks will soon disappear.
Emmett Daly, a Sandler O'Neill MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Nov 9, 2012 1:59 PM ET
Experts say the new rules will do little to end systemic risk.
Fortune -- It appears the banks win, even when they lose.
The new capital rules that were approved by the Federal Reserve, but are still open for comment, on Thursday are being portrayed as a big blow to the banks. The Fed basically sided with international regulators. The banks were pushing for U.S. regulators to be more lenient. Do they MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jun 8, 2012 12:17 PM ET
It's time for our financial institutions to get back to basics: making money off good customer service - not wild speculation.
By Sheila Bair, contributor
FORTUNE -- Financial reformers are pointing to the collapse of the $41 billion MF Global brokerage house as evidence of why we need Dodd-Frank's "Volcker Rule" to prohibit FDIC-insured banks and their affiliates from making proprietary bets on the markets. Fortunately, MF Global was not a bank or MOREDec 9, 2011 5:00 AM ET
By Larry Doyle, contributor
I received a call yesterday from a reporter inquiring about my recent post Occupy Wall Street' Should 'Occupy Washington. Having had a number of previous discussions with this reporter, I welcomed her question as to what I thought the OWS movement should look to achieve or demand.
I prefaced my comments by stating that I hope civil unrest and random violence do not come from these demonstrations. America MOREOct 11, 2011 1:29 PM ET
With regulatory and political landscapes evolving, change is afoot for hedge funds. But will their performance change for the better?
This has been a relatively blah year for hedge funds. Sure there have been pockets of excitement -- there was Timberwolf, the so-called "shitty deal" brought to us by Goldman Sachs (GS), there was the story of the hedge fund wife's inspirational piano playing pig, and of course, there's the ongoing insider MOREKatie Benner - Dec 28, 2010 12:07 PM ET
The new Basel rules are silent on a key question: How much the too big to fail banks should pay for the privilege.
The program outlined Sunday by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision raises minimum capital levels substantially. U.S. regulators said the new rules will provide "for a more stable banking system that is less prone to excessive risk-taking, and better able to absorb losses while continuing to perform its essential MOREColin Barr - Sep 13, 2010 12:16 PM ET
Even at Goldman Sachs, the bonus pool no longer looks bottomless.
Wall Street's most gilded firm reported a big drop in second-quarter earnings Tuesday. The trading frenzy that fueled Goldman's profit rebound last year slowed sharply in the quarter ended last month, as investors stepped back from a turbulent market.
But Goldman's bottom line isn't the only number that took a hit. Goldman's bonus pool shrank as well -- though it's worth MOREColin Barr - Jul 20, 2010 10:13 AM ET
With the passage of new Wall Street reform, states will have some power to catch financial bad guys again.
By Heidi N. Moore, contributor
The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill (should it ever pass) is supposed to be a victory for the little guy. But what few people know is that it's also a victory for the little regulators.
Well, they're not really little; they're the nation's 50 or so state securities regulators. And MOREJun 29, 2010 5:18 PM ET
|Bernanke warns against hitting the brakes too soon|
|Insanely durable smartphone ... from Caterpillar?|
|Stocks pop as Bernanke eases fears|
|This country needs another financial crisis|
|Sony shares surge on spin off talk|