Within hours, minutes actually, of Bank of America’s stock price decline of 3% attributed to news of a Wikileak release possibly aimed at the bank, financial pundits set to work calming the masses. Dick Bove, a bank industry analyst tells the Financial Post

“It is believed that the release will be so damaging as to create a new crisis in banking,” Mr. Bove writes in a note. “I find this almost impossible to believe. I cannot imagine what new news will be released on banking that is not already known or has been speculated about in the press for the past three years.”

Then he sniffed, “In this atmosphere, it would appear that anyone can float a statement that will have an immediate negative impact on bank stocks.”

The very next day, CNNMoney wrote, “…speculation about a big WikiLeaks reveal sometime in 2011 is probably the last reason to sell bank stocks. ”

Bank of America stocks were back up within fort eight hours thanks, in part, to an “…analyst report from Goldman Sachs that was unusually bullish on financial stocks”. [emphasis mine]

Another site suggested the Wikileaks furor made this a great time to buy BofA.

While it is true Wikileaks was enduring massive DDOS attacks in advance of the November 30 BofA stock drop Amazon dumped the whistleblower on December 1. This was immediately followed by EveryDNS on December 2 folowed by PayPal, December 4.

The same day Bank of America’s stock plunged, Sweden, in an unusual move, hastily issued an Interpol ‘red notice’ arrest warrant executed so sloppily they had to do it over. A day later, Australia declared it “..would provide every assistance to United States law-enforcement authorities.”

According to the BofA website the bank boasts clients worldwide.

With unrivaled insight and access delivered by dedicated relationship teams, we connect clients with the right opportunities in more than 150 countries throughout Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Asia Pacific and the Americas.

Sure, the embassy cables are embarrassing but the magnitude of these attacks suggest more than ‘saving face’ and feigned national security, governments have survived much worse. We are talking pure greed here and the fear of losing wealth and power. My bet is the banksters are funding the Wikileaks assault.

UPDATE: According to OpenSecrets.org Joe Lieberman has received over half a million dollars in campaign contributions from 2005 to 2010 from the financial services industry

UPDATE-2: There is an interesting piece up at Huffington Post By Anat Admati, Professor of Finance and Economics at Stanford Graduate School of Business, regarding bank ‘equity’, or the deliberate lack thereof, the cost of equity and regulation.

The case for much more equity funding for large banks (and possibly other financial institutions) is overwhelming. The main challenges are to define the “regulatory umbrella” appropriately, to understand the “shadow banking” system, and to find effective ways to monitor the true risk and leverage of financial institutions on and off the balance sheets. These challenges can be met if energy is focused appropriately.

Sensible capital regulation does not necessarily involve a hard and fixed “number” for the equity ratio, but rather a flexible system of buffers and adjustments where the balance sheet of the banks is managed with the objective of allowing them to operate without overly endangering themselves and the system. Supervising the payouts and the funding methods of banks so as to keep the system healthy and functional is eminently possible if we take up the challenge.

First, however, we should remove the fog of confusion. Then we must find the political will to insist on prudent regulation before another crisis hits.

Assange was quoted, when talking about the bank information in his possession, as saying, “… think Enron in scope”. Might it be banks’ already thin equity positions (bailed out already) have been cooked, just like Enron’s financial statements were? Or worse?