As the only two independent Wall Street brokerages standing, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will face a barrage of questions at their third quarter announcements this week.

Some experts believe that, in a climate of panic in which clients, trading partners and lenders are becoming increasingly wary of brokerages, it is only a matter of time before the two groups melt down or are snapped up.

Chris Whalen, of Institutional Risk Analytics, which assesses the risks associated with financial groups, said: “If things keep going the way they are going, both Goldman and Morgan Stanley will have to sell. If they don't, they will be attacked by the hedge funds. It doesn't matter that each is a perfectly solvent company - so was Lehman.”

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are bracing themselves for more than an hour's questioning at the conference calls held for analysts when they announce results today and tomorrow, respectively. Before the question-and-answer sessions, each will go through their balance sheets with a microscope, with a particular emphasis on the likelihood of further writedowns on mortgage-related investments. Each is expected to disclose that it took between $1 billion and $2 billion of writedowns in the third quarter. Analysts forecast that Goldman will report a 72 per cent fall in profits for the third quarter, to $1.73 a share, while Morgan Stanley is expected to record a 44 per cent drop in earnings, to about 77 cents a share. Fears that Lehman's collapse foreshadowed even tougher times for Goldman and Morgan dragged down their shares by 6.9 per cent and 8.8 per cent, respectively, in early afternoon trading in New York.

Guy Moszkowski, an analyst at Merrill Lynch, said that Lehman Brothers' “apparent demise and the likely damage to its bondholders indicates significant spread-widening for independent broker-dealers”, such as Goldman, as well as “probably considerably narrower access to funds, even for a premier firm like [Goldman]”.

The Standard & Poor's ratings agency said that it still believed that Goldman had performed better than its peers through sound risk management and prudent executive decisions, “but we also think the crisis of confidence within its industry has failed to separate good performers from bad”.

Michael Werner, an analyst for Sanford Bernstein, said the suggestion that Goldman's or Morgan's independence was untenable was overdone. He said: “Morgan and Goldman are very different from Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. They all had massive exposure to high-risk assets, had taken huge writedowns, with the prospect of plenty more to come. By contrast, Goldman and Morgan Stanley have much less exposure and have managed it well.”

Analysts also say that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are much more diversified than Bear Stearns - which was rescued by JPMorgan Chase in March - and Lehman Brothers. Indeed, although the tough times look set to continue, some analysts believe that the collapse of Lehman could be good for business. David Trone, an analyst at Fox-Pitt Kelton, expects Goldman to be the biggest beneficiary, gaining an extra 5.5 per cent of revenues. He expects Morgan Stanley's revenue to rise by 4 per cent.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive