JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) Chase reported an earnings miss Wednesday due in large part to large fines and associated legal costs as the bank’s Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon said “banks are under assault” and “we have five or six regulators coming at us on every issue.”

Dimon engaged in a testy conference call with analysts where he was repeatedly asked about a company breakup, a Hot Topic, Inc. (NASDAQ:HOTT) since rival Goldman Sachs Group Inc (NYSE:GS) suggested several days ago the math works.

Erika Najarian, an analyst from Bank of America Merrill Lynch, was the first to address the elephant in the room, asking the “B” breakup question using polite and diplomatic language.  “Perhaps you could remind us of how you’re thinking about the benefits of keeping the franchise consolidated for the shareholders versus some of the conversation that investors are having today about breaking up or shrinking the bank?”

Jamie Dimon takes on Goldman Sachs

Dimon first responded by addressing the author of the report, an analyst at Goldman Sachs, disputing the fact “investors” are behind the breakup concept. “Some people (Goldman Sachs) wrote about it as a possibility because of excess capital and it’s true; you have to hold more capital, all things being equal, it will reduce your returns. But even the people who wrote about that talk about the superior franchises, the benefits of synergies,” Dimon said, stressing over and over the bank is too complex to break apart. (Breaking up JPMorgan has been previously discussed in hedge fund circles, but the courage to put pen to paper in an investment letter has yet to have been found, at least to my knowledge.)

Dimon successfully skirted many issues Najarian raised, even those of complexity being a negative. So next up to bat was Chris Kotowski of Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. (NYSE:OPY) & Co, who took a second swing. The result was mostly the same, with Dimon’s saying breaking up JPMorgan was like “unscrambling the egg.” But analysts clearly wanted to hear more about what a large omelet divided up into smaller, more manageable breakfast plates might look.

Jamie Dimon via FBN

Jamie Dimon vs Nancy Bush

But it was Nancy Bush of NAB Research, the third hitter to the plate, who got down to the real issue.  “In Washington, there is still a belief that your Company in its present form is a danger to the global financial system. Is there any — in your view, is there any level of capital that is going to mitigate the too big to fail issue or does it go beyond that?”

Bush’s question apparently went “beyond that” as Dimon challenged the assertion.

“I think, Nancy, views and facts are completely different, okay?” Dimon responded, then began to deliver his Fortress defense, saying risk has decreased. “This Company was a port in the storm in the real crisis in 2008 and 2009 and that was after we bought Bear Stearns and (inaudible).”

Stephen Platt on Jamie Dimon

Stephen Platt, leading financial crime expert, barrister, and author of the new book out this week, “Criminal Capital: How the Finance Industry Facilitates Crime,” thinks Dimon needs to enter rehab, because he doesn’t even recognize the problem.

“They say that the first stage of grief is denial and it seems that Jamie Dimon is a long way from the final stage – acceptance of the harm wrought by banks,” Platt said. “The bald faced cheek of complaining that banks are under assault after all of their harmful behaviour.”

When addressing risk never once did any of the analysts ask, nor did JPMorgan address, the derivatives risk exposure. What happens if interest rates suddenly rise and more sovereign nations default on their loans than anticipated? Brennan Hawken of UBS AG (NYSE:UBS) came the closest to asking about derivatives, which elicited a response that equity derivative exposure is largely Japan and Europe and Asia, with emphasis in Asia.

Platt said Dimon’s performance today was “a brilliant example of somebody sitting in an ivory tower with his feet under the boardroom table with no conception of the impact of bank conduct on ordinary people’s lives – not only as a result of rigging markets but other causally linked behaviour prevalent in the industry including money laundering and the facilitation of crime – two of the great evils of our age. New leadership is needed in banking if future scandals and crises are to be avoided.”