In both of these cases, the bears are going to cry, "Foul!" and, "You can't do that." I can hear the bears howl as Capital One doubles, saying, "There is no justice." But what did people really think, that the government doesn't want Capital One to be in business? That the goal of the stress tests was to wipe out companies that issue high-risk credit cards? Then how are people supposed to get credit, for heaven's sake?

From the beginning there were two things wrong with Wall Street's perception of the stress tests. One was to think they would be punitive or too rigorous. Some of this was a belief that President Obama wanted to somehow crush the banks because they were malefactors of wealth. This was at the height of the AIG (NYSE: AIG) (Cramer's Take) confusion, confusion because AIG appears to be a bit of a criminal enterprise.

Some of it was an understanding that the economy was falling apart at such a rapid clip that almost no bank could succeed and nationalization would begin in earnest. I keep hitting on this point because I don't know how close people realize that we came to this because this administration was listening to the academics and their silly Swedish plans, as if somehow nationalizing a couple of banks of a small European country that has no exotic investments or exposure, just conventional mortgages, was a good paradigm to choose. We will come to see these proponents as Leninists in the history books to come.

The other mistake was to believe that perhaps it was all a big joke. No, what Treasury did was precisely what the government did in 1989-1991, actually a little less onerous. It simply showed, with great intelligence, forbearance toward outfits like Capital One or BB&T, which you know you could have gone into with guns blazing and wiped them out. Heck, you could wipe out Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC) (Cramer's Take) if you wanted to.

But what's the point of doing it if 1) housing is bottoming nationwide, and 2) bonds filled with the so-called worthless Alt-A mortgages have rallied 20% in a week as people recognize the banks won't have to dump them that furiously, and 3) the runs had stopped -- no more Washington Mutual-Wachovia style drains?

Given the amazing short base -- the worst I have seen since 1991 when the Feshbach brothers, at the time noted short-sellers, said that shorting banks was like shooting fish in a barrel -- the rally is understandable. Is it done?

We have always seen the shorts stage a midday stand against this group, and even though the Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) (Cramer's Take) run in the face of terrible news was astonishing, and Wednesday was a complete and utter defeat for the bears in the group, I have to believe they will try again. (Two more upgrades of BAC today, though, by Barclays and Baird, both saying the worst is over -- and I agree with them.)

But you have to buy. This is a group that has gone from being overweighted to radically underweighted, even more than the oils -- maybe a little like the coals! -- and it will have to be bought.

Jim Cramer is co-founder and chairman of TheStreet.com. He contributes daily market commentary for TheStreet.com's sites and serves as an adviser to the company's CEO. At the time of publication, Cramer was long Wells Fargo.