Right now things seem stable there, but the same could have been said of Lehman pre-Bear crisis. The problem is that like Bear and Lehman, Goldman relies on financing from other Wall Street firms to finance its operations. While a commercial bank like BofA also borrows money on a daily basis, it also has a massive base of deposits which it can use. More than 10% of our nation's deposits are held at BofA -- a staggering number. That's why BofA could afford to buy Countrywide and now Merrill, and why JPMorganChase could afford to buy Bear. If LIBOR (the interbank lending rate) spikes, if repo rates spike, if funding desks increase their haircuts (thereby limiting the amount of money that can be borrowed against a given par amount of collateral), firms like Goldman will find it much more expensive to operate. And given the troubles that other investment banks have had, I don't think banks are going to be very willing to lend to each other when we open up tomorrow morning.

I wouldn't be surprised if Goldman/MorganS snap up the likes of Wachovia just to stay competitive.

Given the difference in market cap, I'd be surprised if either could afford it - GS =~ 60bn, MS =~ 40bn, WB =~ 33.5 bn on 835bn AUM. They're not exactly small, post A.G. Edwards.

You are not wrong, but stock prices are a reflection of trouble - just because trouble isn't reflected in a stock price yet doesn't mean there isn't any. Lehman's stock price 10 days ago being proof of that ;-)