Since the global financial crisis, regulations have been put in place to ensure banks hold sufficient capital, recognise risk and protect their depositors.  Tareq Muhmood, ANZ's chief executive officer for Korea and managing director global subsidiaries, says "most of these regulations come with good intentions, although it is unintended consequences that cause concern."He suggests banks need a rating system, much like restaurant hygiene scores, to better inform clients who can then decided where to deposit their money - at their own risk.Writing in Blue Notes, ANZ's in-house publication for clients and other interested people, Muhmood warns that "today's regulations are to protect us against past mistakes but in all likelihood they might not protect against tomorrow's dangers.""To come at the problem from a different perspective, to remind depositors they are lending money to an institution and the return depends on risk, would be valuable. It wouldn't of course be easy and it comes back to financial literacy."Muhmood says that, "like bonds, a better assessment system for banks would help lower risk for taxpayers and increase the transparency of the financial system. "Banks with low loan-to-deposit ratios, do not engage in complex on-balance sheet derivative transactions and have a track record of stability of leadership, for example, would score an 'A'."Conversely, those with weaker ratios, more complex businesses, high leadership turnover, would be scored a 'D' or 'E'", he says."Just as with restaurant hygiene scores displayed in the windows of diners in places like Singapore and New York, depositors would be better informed and can make their decision on where to place their funds - at their own risk."Banks operating with more risks would expect to pay more for their deposits than those with less."Muhmood says the ratings services already provided by Moody's, S&P, Fitch and others "would need to evolve to cater for the need of depositors, as opposed to bond or shareholders." Muhmood notes that similar schemes operate in some jurisdictions, notably Cyprus and New Zealand (although in New Zealand the major banks are subsidiaries of Australian banks and hence operate under an Australian 'umbrella').He says the basis for his 'lender-beware' argument was when he heard about one UK University whose treasurer placed £10 million with an Icelandic Bank operating in the UK.  "They chose this small Icelandic bank over Barclays or HSBC because of the 'rate'.  When the Icelandic Bank 'froze' during the financial crisis, the University was bailed out and taxpayers paid the bill."In such cases, shouldn't the university carry the burden for chasing a higher price irrespective of the risk?" Muhmood asks."I recognise my thought process may sound too simplistic and this issue has a phenomenal degree of complexity. But while a bank failure carries significant systematic risks, complexity and pain, the pain of bailouts and the unintended consequences of regulations is much worse," Muhmood concludes.