Possible, but I sense a lot of bailout fatigue. Shareholders and bondholders may end up eating a lot more of this.

One thing in the pdf that was interesting was that they were talking about paying back the government to get out from under TARP is premature. And the banks that are out from under it can poach employees of banks that are still under TARP. They also say wrt bailouts:

• This is unfair and unwise
– Fairness: Debt holders were paid higher interest than, for example, buying Treasuries in
exchange for knowingly taking more risk. These investors made bad decisions, lending to highly leveraged companies that made bad decisions, so why should they be protected?
– Moral Hazard: The reckless behavior of debt investors was a major contributor to the bubble. It was low-cost debt with virtually no strings attached that allowed borrowers, especially the world's major financial institutions, to become massively overleveraged, fueling the greatest asset bubble in history. This was not an equity bubble – unlike the internet bubble, for example, stock market valuations never got crazy – it was a debt bubble, so it would be particularly perverse and ironic if government bailouts allowed equity holders to take a beating, yet fully protected debt holders.
• The solution: debt should be converted into equity