ABBA-Another Bank Bailout Assessment

Here's my idea for the bank bailout...

1 Banks need to open up their books and Fed/FDIC evaluates assets (and identifies what can't be evaluated). I'm sure these assets can be accurately priced, which will be below the bank's marked value. Some banks like Citi are insolvent.
2 Fed rates all banks from weakest to strongest.
3 Fed then creates a timetable when the banks will be "released" to sink or swim; this will be staggered every 3-6 months or so, with the weakest banks getting "released" first. Once released, banks either then exist by getting private funds on their own or go bankrupt. Investors can pony up more of their $ if they think the bank is solid.
4 Fed props up ALL banks in the meantime w/Federal $ to pay for operating expenses.
5 If a bank is released and is insolvent, then the FDIC takes them over in receivership. Good assets are sold to highest bidder, bad assets are kept by FDIC and sold over a period of time (years). Stronger banks buy the good assets of the failed banks, making all of them stronger because they have a higher % of good assets.
6 Repeat the process over a period of 12-24 months until all banks exist on their own or are bankrupt.

Banks that sink:
CEOs get FIRED
Shareholders get NOTHING
Bondholders get NOTHING

Staggering the "releases" will make sure the system isn't overwhelmed with good assets: only 1 bank's "good assets" will be sold at any one time (if they fail), lowering the prices too much.

This also gives time for banks on the list to get their house in order, and everyone can see where each bank is on the list.

We can sell these bad assets for whatever we want, whereas the banks can't lower the prices to actual value lest they be declared insolvent. So they stubbornly cling to high prices for these bad assets, and hope that taxpayers will OVERPAY for them? If we're going to own these bad assets regardless, we'll take them over in a receivership like the FDIC does ALL THE TIME, and sell them when we want at the price we want. We can even wait years to sell these assets when they are more valuable, whereas the banks don't have that kind of time.

If we say this idea is impossible, what we are saying is that 100% of our large banks are INSOLVENT and even combined with all good assets from ALL the other banks, NO AMERICAN BANK would survive. If that is the case, what is the point of banks auctioning their bad assets in Tim Geithner's new PPIP? If there aren't enough good assets to make ONE bank solvent, then Geithner's plan will fail because even after selling off their bad assets, these banks will STILL fail. Right?

If we don't do this plan, what will prevent banks from doing the EXACT SAME THING 10-15 years from now? Let's see, make tens of billions creating an asset bubble, then let the taxpayer pay for the bad assets when the bubble pops: that's a situation banks can get behind. All banks will do is get themselves in a position where they are "too big to fail" and do the same thing: run up an asset bubble and rake in the $ before it pops. They will say this in 2019 after the next asset bubble pops: "sure, we did this same thing 10 years ago in 2009, but this time we REALLY thought we were buying good assets, and did we mention we're too big to fail?"

My plan costs the Government less (taxpayers will own the bank's bad assets regardless, why pay extra for them in an auction?), bankers/investors suffer for making bad decisions, and everyone inside the banks and out knows what the timeframes are.