Appraisers' Free Forum

And, of course, there are lots of other options:

http://bankimplode.com/

I don't know if this qualifies as who is next, these small fry don't generally make the mainstream media news, so there could have been someone else before them. But, they may be who's next:

http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/b ... 1200315956

I have heard several commentators say that smaller banks who are "not too big to fail" will be the next round.

This guy got sued for saying who might be next:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/04/busin ... &th&emc=th

I think the feds (all branches & agencies) will focus on saving the GSEs as their primary strategy to help all the other banks. Outside of the discount window and quelling "rumor mongers" I think the feds will leave the other banks to their own resources.

Hmm, we were right about the GSEs.

I imagine the big boys have had a complete list who gets saved and who doesn't for a long time. Given the attitude of banks toward each other (refusing to loan to each other, unable to complete joint efforts to bail out their own CDOs, LBOs, blah, blah), it's every man for himself.

Banks have not been willing to cut each other any slack at all, rather have employed rumors and short selling to hasten the decline of their competitors.

I believe the big boys had to make some promises to the banks who have bought other banks (JPM/Bear, BOA/CW). It's all power brokering. JPM and BOA were probably promised they would be considered too big to fail and promised they would be protected from the onslaught of criminal investigations, rumors, and short selling. In return, the two banks had to agree to take over two big banks that the FDIC could not afford to pay out on. Li'l ole Indy was a nice bite size for FDIC.

The answer to the "who's too big to fail" question is "who's big enough to help with the bail out that the FDIC cannot afford."

I believe the whole bunch of them were/are in eminent danger of collapse and the back room boys are conspiring with the chosen few to try to pull at least something out of it whole.

Every week you read about relaxing accounting reporting standards, easing what may be kept off balance sheets, lengthening time frames for compliance, etc. They need breathing room and they need it fast.

I'll stick my neck out and predict Goldmans will be the very only big investment bank to survive. If there is a second one, I'd bet on Morgan Stanley. Bears is already gone and Lehmans and Merrill are next in line.

After JPM and BOA, I like Wells Fargo as having the "lucky draw". Someone's going to get Citi. All of the regional banks will go.

These companies are already trying to divest whole units in their efforts to raise money, reduce costs. By the time their competitors or the FDIC get them they will be a smaller morsel.

Also, it seems like the commercial banks are favoring divesting of their investment units. You know, getting back to their core business of commercial banking. That makes them a more managable meal, too.



=======

There, I've made a nice smarty pants post that sounds like I think I'm some sort of a pundit. Ha. I'm totally ignorant about every bit of this stuff. But I still like to make predictions.

Geez, Marcia, you're almost as cynical as I am... and right....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/busin ... &th&emc=th

“How do you raise $5 billion when the market thinks your entire company is only worth $4 billion?” asked Sean Egan, managing director of Egan-Jones Ratings, an independent credit ratings firm.

Well, it helps if you think your investment is going to be protected by the taxpayers.

“They are the only game in town right now, and if Freddie and Fannie can make it out of this they’ll be enormously profitable down the road,” said David Dreman of DWS Dreman Concentrated Value, a $16 billion investment fund that owns about 10 million shares of Freddie Mac.

Meanwhile, who's really next? Probably someone not on the list (in fact there have been several such someones since this poll started). Here's one worth watching:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/busin ... 4ufcYpCyhg

“For a very long time, it was an excellent performing package.” he said. “It gave the borrower a chance to manage his money. If they qualified, it was an excellent loan.”

He also dismissed as “completely absurd” and “idiotic” concerns that the bank’s practices have eroded the strength of the bank’s assets, despite a recent revision by one brokerage firm of its shares to underperform.

Anytime you see that kind of short-sighted logic, you can bet you're headed for a fall.

Meanwhile, the journalists are complaining that the SEC witch hunt for rumor mongers is causing their inside contacts at the ratings agencies and analysts to dry up. We'll probably be getting less and less info from now on. Everything will be top secret.

New info... (9/11/08)... AND THE LEADER IS...

(envelope please)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/busin ... ref=slogin