To my mind, although it's in-principle equivalent, the clearer way to think about this is that banks
borrow money from depositors and
lend that money via loans or investments.
The primary business of a bank is borrowing short and lending long - where short and long refer to the holding time: i.e. taking demand or short-duration term deposits and making mortgage, car and other types of loans.
If you do this badly, you can lose money due to duration risk (you might end up paying more on your demand deposits than your mortgage book is bringing in), but you also have liquidity risks because your depositors can ask for those deposits back faster than you unwind your lending.
If you have both of these occurring at the same time, you're then in severe difficulty, because the only way to repay your depositors is by borrowing money ... which is going to be harder if you look unprofitable ... and that very borrowing can exacerbate the perception of a bank in trouble.
That's basically what happened here.
The primary business of a bank is borrowing short and lending long - where short and long refer to the holding time: i.e. taking demand or short-duration term deposits and making mortgage, car and other types of loans.
If you do this badly, you can lose money due to duration risk (you might end up paying more on your demand deposits than your mortgage book is bringing in), but you also have liquidity risks because your depositors can ask for those deposits back faster than you unwind your lending.
If you have both of these occurring at the same time, you're then in severe difficulty, because the only way to repay your depositors is by borrowing money ... which is going to be harder if you look unprofitable ... and that very borrowing can exacerbate the perception of a bank in trouble.
That's basically what happened here.