And the 2% is set off of using provisions as the loss estimate for those two failure periods.

So the provisions, the higher actual losses experienced, so it's pushing or elevating that 2% to a more significant level than what the FDIC might find if they did a reassessment of actual funds necessary to cover the industry in a safe manner through another crisis.

So our expectation would be that if the FDIC made these small changes to their modeling and took a deeper dive, you may be able to make the argument for a ratio that's below 2% but still above the 1.35%.

What's your preliminary analysis of what might be different today in how this gets calibrated versus how it is today or versus how it was in the past if the FDIC were to go through and revisit the simulation?

And the 2% is set off of using provisions as the loss estimate for those two failure periods.

So the provision would be higher actual losses experienced.

So it's pushing or elevating that 2% to a more significant level than what the FDIC might find if they did a reassessment.

of actual funds necessary to cover the industry in a safe manner through another crisis.