They know (and it is obvious) that all deposits are going to be fine without any extra funds, wacko VC's and nutjob politicians are stoking the sort of flames that might cause a contagion so they are forced to make statements like this.
The fact that the statement is so milquetoast is certainly on them, but being uber-conservative in your promises is generally a failing/asset for bank regulators.
… which is why Signature Bank was also placed in receivership this weekend. The contagion was spreading, if they did nothing there would be runs on a number of banks tomorrow. There still may be runs tomorrow.
Looking at other banks that maybe be in a similar position and taking prompt action is competence to be celebrated, I view it as more evidence that despite weaknesses in the regulatory framework they are not in a tough spot at all. They know they can act decisively without fear.
A tough spot would be an environment where they let the SVB situation drag out and didn't act on Signature until a run was in motion and had both to deal with at once.. then they would be fighting to restore confidence.
If you look at the numbers from 2007-08 and this stuff, plus the much tougher regulatory environment (despite SVB's ability to fall under a lot of thresholds) there just isn't the sort of systemic risk at play here that folks seem to be implying. Also this isn't a replay of the S&L Crisis of the 1980's because those lessons were actually learned but some institutions are still going to screw up because a rising interest rate environment is still challenging in the current regulatory regime.
They know (and it is obvious) that all deposits are going to be fine without any extra funds, wacko VC's and nutjob politicians are stoking the sort of flames that might cause a contagion so they are forced to make statements like this.
The fact that the statement is so milquetoast is certainly on them, but being uber-conservative in your promises is generally a failing/asset for bank regulators.