Could the pending Wikileaks bank documents trigger another recession?

[Tyooby]

Julian Assange revealed in a Forbes interview (http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/) that early next year, Wikileaks will drop a trove of documents that could take down "one or two banks."

It's speculated (http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-bank-of-america-2010-11) that these documents are the 5GB of data from Bank of America, that's been copied from one of the executive's hard drives.

What do you think would be the effect on the current fragile state of the economic recovery if the leaks will actually cause Bank of America to fall?

[JJM 777]

I am not interested in Bank of America.

Would be more interesting to see account listings of banks in tax paradise countries.

[KoihimeNakamura]

It'd also cause wikileaks to shutdown. BoA's corporate lawyers would be all over him

Sent from my Droid

[Aepervius]

It'd also cause wikileaks to shutdown. BoA's corporate lawyers would be all over him

Sent from my Droid

Sure. But the nature of such a web site like wikileaks, is that anybody can take over the technical stuff, duplicates server, and start the same all over. Attacking (legaly or financially) Assange would not bring much, unless he is killed in a spectacularly painfully and horrible fashion, to make other copy cat afraid of consequences . otherwise prison and bankruptcy will not make certain type of people afraid at all.

[Tyooby]

What do you think would be the effect on the current fragile state of the economic recovery if the leaks will actually cause Bank of America to fall?

So why I asked this question is because I'm curious but I have no idea because I don't know much about economy. But I've seen BoA described as the biggest bank of the US so I assume the impact of its demise would be significant. Anyone care to make an educated guess?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

To answer the question asked in the thread title:

No.

[drkitten]

What do you think would be the effect on the current fragile state of the economic recovery if the leaks will actually cause Bank of America to fall?

Relatively little; individual banks failing due to mismanagement doesn't reflect badly on the external economy at all. Citigroup or another megabank would simply take over their portfolio with the blessing and assistance of the FDIC.

[Tyooby]

Relatively little; individual banks failing due to mismanagement doesn't reflect badly on the external economy at all. Citigroup or another megabank would simply take over their portfolio with the blessing and assistance of the FDIC.

Alright, so no need to be worried :) Thank you.

[Random]

If a bank is so weak that revealing its internal working could cause it to collapse, that bank has no business existing in the first place.

[drkitten]

If a bank is so weak that revealing its internal working could cause it to collapse, that bank has no business existing in the first place.

... which says nothing about whether or not it does exist.

I suspect a lot of businesses generally are on a lot shakier footing than they let on.

[chainlink]

A few years ago a hacker released an entire database containing emails, internal memos, spreadsheets, and other confidential data (including lists of employee names, addresses, wages, SS#'s etc) from a anti-P2P company called MediaDefender, which ArtistDirect had recently purchased for $50 million.

Soon after the leak, MediaDefender's clients stopped renewing their contracts, their revenue plunged, and ArtistDirect was left owing $millions on a company that became essentially worthless virtually overnight.

The probable reason that the leak was so damaging was that these internal emails revealed that the company had been lying to its clients, chiefly record companies and Hollywood studios, greatly exaggerating the effectiveness of their Bittorrent disruption methods, and even openly discussing strategies to deceive their clients, several of which were growing skeptical.

The company was, in effect, keeping two drastically-dissimilar sets of "books" - one for internal evaluation, and one for public consumption - and the document leak blew the scam wide open.

However, MediaDefender was a tiny startup company run by two loose-lipped guys in their twenties. One would think that a more established corporate business - such as a major international bank - would fastidiously avoid ever putting any incriminating information in writing.

[A Laughing Baby]

Banks that fail due to mismanagement are given to banks that don't fail due to mismanagement by the FDIC. Just one more example of the horrible central government ruining the free market :rolleyes:

[Checkmite]

Since nothing published by Wikileaks is going to be admissible in court, my answer to the question in the thread title is "no".

[babycondor]

... One would think that a more established corporate business - such as a major international bank - would fastidiously avoid ever putting any incriminating information in writing.

One would think, except for numerous "smoking gun internal memo" stories illustrating the opposite. Heard of Enron? R.J. Reynolds (big tobacco)?

[drkitten]

Since nothing published by Wikileaks is going to be admissible in court, my answer to the question in the thread title is "no".

Anything published by Wikileaks will be discoverable.

BoA really doesn't want to destroy a document that might be subject to discovery. Not only would that subject them to several billion dollars in fines,... if the best copy of a document is the one on Wikileaks, and BoA's the reason that the original is no longer available, then hey presto! the Wikileaks copy suddenly becomes admissible....

[Checkmite]

Unless Wikileaks reveals the source, the documents have no provenance. They could be forgeries. You can bet BoA's lawyers will be arguing that they are.

But it doesn't matter. I highly doubt that the FTC, SEC, or any other federal government agency will legitimize Wikileaks' activities by bringing charges against a bank on the basis of documents leaked by them.

[INRM]

Julian Assange will probably get assassinated, and his site shut down, before he ever releases those documents.

Bankers have very powerful allies. Keep in mind the big banking has ties with the CFR, and the CFR has ties with the CIA, and if you did your history you'd know that a lot of people who headed the CIA in it's first years were bankers and lawyers; many who had ties with the CFR.


INRM
"No matter how I die, it was murder"
SNL impression of Julian Assange

[drkitten]

Julian Assange will probably get assassinated, and his site shut down, before he ever releases those documents.

Don't be any more stupid than you have to.

Assassinating him would just make him a martyr and someone else would release whatever documents he has to the temporary public glow of adulation any obviously illegal conduct would produce.

Even if you're that stupid, the bankers aren't. There's nothing Assange could release that would be more damaging than trying to stop him from releasing them by committing an obviously-criminal act.

[patchbunny]

Don't be any more stupid than you have to.

Assassinating him would just make him a martyr and someone else would release whatever documents he has to the temporary public glow of adulation any obviously illegal conduct would produce.

Even if you're that stupid, the bankers aren't. There's nothing Assange could release that would be more damaging than trying to stop him from releasing them by committing an obviously-criminal act.

It's mroe complicated than just that. Do you let him continue indefinitely, and allow him to continue obtaining and releasing documents damaging to your position, or just get it over with once and for all, and deal with it?

There's also the potential for agencies not affiliated with the US (Iran, North Korea, Al Queda) to want him dead for the negative consequences it would cause the US. As a bonus, the assumption would be it was the US that did it.

[drkitten]

It's mroe complicated than just that. Do you let him continue indefinitely, and allow him to continue obtaining and releasing documents damaging to your position, or just get it over with once and for all, and deal with it?

No. Those are both bad choices,.... but letting him continue to get and release documents would be less bad. The problem is that Assange is a figurehead; killing Assange wouldn't stop the leaks, and would add credibility to the leaks (since someone obviously took the information seriously enough to kill for it).


There's also the potential for agencies not affiliated with the US (Iran, North Korea, Al Queda) to want him dead for the negative consequences it would cause the US. As a bonus, the assumption would be it was the US that did it.

Moving the goalposts much? INRM's rather silly suggestion was that "the bankers" would get their friends in the CIA to kill him. The suggestion is rather silly for several reasons -- "the bankers" are unlikely to act as a unit; if they did act as a unit, they wouldn't want to assassinate him, and even if they wanted to, the CIA wouldn't play along, because it's a stupid move.

That's not to say that the North Koreans wouldn't want to kill Assange precisely because it would hurt the CIA. But the idea that the CIA would shoot itself in the foot like this because "the bankers" want to shoot themselves in the foot and need the CIA to pull the trigger,.... well, I'm not sure if it's within forum rules to call an irrational paranoid conspiracy fantasist an irrational paranoid conspiracy fantasist.

[kevinquinnyo]

No. Those are both bad choices,.... but letting him continue to get and release documents would be less bad. The problem is that Assange is a figurehead; killing Assange wouldn't stop the leaks, and would add credibility to the leaks (since someone obviously took the information seriously enough to kill for it).



Moving the goalposts much? INRM's rather silly suggestion was that "the bankers" would get their friends in the CIA to kill him. The suggestion is rather silly for several reasons -- "the bankers" are unlikely to act as a unit; if they did act as a unit, they wouldn't want to assassinate him, and even if they wanted to, the CIA wouldn't play along, because it's a stupid move.

That's not to say that the North Koreans wouldn't want to kill Assange precisely because it would hurt the CIA. But the idea that the CIA would shoot itself in the foot like this because "the bankers" want to shoot themselves in the foot and need the CIA to pull the trigger,.... well, I'm not sure if it's within forum rules to call an irrational paranoid conspiracy fantasist an irrational paranoid conspiracy fantasist.

LOL i wish there was a "like" button for comments here

[Toke]

Even if you're that stupid, the bankers aren't. There's nothing Assange could release that would be more damaging than trying to stop him from releasing them by committing an obviously-criminal act.

So, "The pelican brief" were not a documentary? :eye-poppi


I my experience people at large companies are very careful about what they put in writing. Because they know that it can come back to bite them.

[Arthur Mann]

I my experience people at large companies are very careful about what they put in writing. Because they know that it can come back to bite them.

Is this another way of saying you can never get a straight answer from them?

[Toke]

Is this another way of saying you can never get a straight answer from them?

Depends, a dodgy answer from a boss may mean that you are supposed to do something questionable (with deniability for the boss).

[dudalb]

No. I predict the bank documents might make some bank officials look scummy, but that will be about it.