Reflecting on the size, scope, and health of the banking sector 12 months ago is a painful exercise. But even one year into the credit crisis, imagining its future is somehow more difficult.

Of course, no one had any way of knowing last August that balance sheets were filled with assets so diseased that they would never recover. Bear Stearns had suffered two hedge fund casualties, but it was still worth more than $13 billion. Chuck Prince was running Citigroup and Stan O'Neal was still trying to tame the bulls at Merrill Lynch. People were still getting no-money-down mortgages based on their stated income.

My, how times have changed.

Bear Stearns agreed to be sold to J.P. Morgan for less than the current market value of Crocs. More than $300 billion was wiped out of the market caps for the biggest U.S. banks. Thousands in finance lost their jobs, including quite a few from the executive suites. (Click here for an interactive on Wall Street's losses.)

But even with new talent brought in to help clean up the disastrous aftermath of the asset securitization all-night dance party, it's still too difficult to tally the damage. Just last week, Merrill Lynch chief executive John Thain did an about-face by dumping $30 billion of assets for 22 cents on the dollar and announcing plans to raise $8.5 billion in new capital.

The actions not only contradicted Thain's previous proclamations that no more new capital would be needed (for more C.E.O. contradictions, click here). They also underscore the pervasive uncertainty in today's financial markets. Thain was supposed to be Mr. Fix It. Instead he's become Mr. Insecure.

This spring, most bank leaders proclaimed the worst was over. Now no one seems to have a clue when that will ring true. Financial stocks appear to have hit a bottom on July 15, but in this new world order only Jim Cramer has the cojones to definitively call it that.

Shares of Lehman Brothers, which is cursed by being the closest in size to Bear Stearns in the shrinking market of top-tier investment banks, continue to swing wildly based on the rumor du jour. Will it sell its asset-management business? Will it follow Merrill by unloading its worst investments? Will it be sold entirely to another firm? Will chief executive Dick Fuld step down?

Citigroup continues to try new ways to operate more efficiently without having to break itself up. Its latest move under consideration, as reported by the Financial Times, is to return its research analysts to its institutional securities business, where they were before being moved to its Smith Barney wealth management unit in 2002. The move makes sense logically and operationally. Politically, it could create a new set of problems as a reminder of Eliot Spitzer's post-tech bubble equity research shakedown.

Commercial banks and investment banks alike are on shaky ground. Who will buy Washington Mutual? The poor savings and loan has a market cap of less than $9 billion, down more than 70 percent in the past year.

What will become of Wachovia with Goldman alumnus Robert Steel now at the helm? How many more banks will meet the same fate as IndyMac? Will private equity firms be granted their wish to control more of the banking sector without the regulatory burdens that come with it?

Will Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan continue to reign supreme?

So many questions, so few answers. It's especially unsettling considering this credit crisis could continue well into the next presidential term. More consolidation among banks is likely, as are more executive departures and job losses. More write-downs will most certainly come, and more capital will be needed.

But after more of the bad, Wall Street will experience the good again. That much, at least, is certain.

For more on the credit crisis anniversary, see here.