There are a few phrases and words that I have heard in the last few months that I am now fully ready to delete from memory. Among them—Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann, “lipstick on a pit bull,” “edgy” bank branches, and finally—TARP. I’d like to eliminate that last one for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I was the daughter of a very Southern man. That fact meant that every November, the advent of deer hunting season meant that a big blue tarpaulin would eventually appear in the back of the old red pickup truck, usually signaling that something large and no longer alive was under it. Not the mental image that I necessarily want to have in my head when contemplating of the fate of the banking industry—but one that may be more apt than I want to admit.

The BancAnalyst Association of Boston annual conference last week gave a whole group of us bank analysts an opportunity not only to eat ourselves silly, but to hear the word TARP mentioned way more times than it should have been. It became very clear that this thing has rapidly evolved into something other than its initial meaning—a closed-door, one-way, no-way-to-say-no investment by a Treasury Department in full panic mode—into some weird Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Rather than accepting this “investment” as a sign of weakness, there now seem to be a whole cadre of bank CEO’s who are giddily waving their TARP documents around in public, seeing them as some sign that they’re not really as bad as they seem and that they and their banks will get to live another day.

Sullivan & Cromwell head Rodgin Cohen spoke to us on Thursday—and besides scaring the bejeezus out of all of us, he also pointed out something that we all already knew—that a number of the banks that are getting the TARP preferred, probably shouldn’t be. He also admitted that this plan would likely slow the consolidation of the industry and would allow some of the weaker players to linger in an environment that normally would have been killer to mediocre managements. However, he also pointed out that Treasury’s infusion may not be sufficient in the end to keep these companies from failure, and that the initial intent—to prevent a wave of failures that would cripple economic recovery and send the global system crashing—will eventually give way to the next wave of mergers after some of these marginal banks have to confront the realities of their situations.

In any case, this is the week when the rubber hits the road—or some other such apocalyptic metaphor. Mr. Cohen pointed out that the regulators are now in the final throes of determining which banks will not get the funding, and that the tests for CAMEL ratings are now being quickly updated and the final decisions are being made. The “viability” test is a “before” test—i.e., before the infusion—and those banks rated 4 or 5 will not likely get the funding. Those banks not deemed viable will not be disclosed but will simply be doomed to failure within a day or two—which means that they will have to go looking for a merger partner at any price to shareholders.

Since the final day for applications is this Friday, November 14—and decisions should come very quickly thereafter—it looks like we may be back to exciting Monday mornings after having a few weeks of relative calm. But if this marks the end of Round One—then bring it on. I for one am ready to go on to the next phase of this evolution—one that will likely last well into 2010—and will show us who the real banking survivors are. My bet—we may all be surprised by some who disappear from the radar screen—TARP’ed or not.