SVB depositors, in large part the tech sector, have been bailed out. VCs have received a large public subsidy. VCs did not coordinate to capitalise the bank. Some VCs that lobbied for laxer prudential requirements are among those bailed out. These are facts.
I think both upstream comments are partly correct. It can be simultaneously true that:
* The vast majority of early stage startups aren't swimming in cash and the founders aren't millionaires or close to it (hence the need to raise early stage funding).
* Startup businesses are by far the #1 generator of new jobs in the U.S. economy.
...and
* SVB's rapid crash was probably avoidable in several ways even in the final days. Different actions by management, regulators and/or major SVB customers/stakeholders could potentially have made a meaningful difference toward channeling the sudden crash into a sale or recapitalization.
* The significant environmental challenges many banks are now facing are due to the Fed making interest rates excessively low for too long and then very rapidly raising the rates. Both of these were nearly unprecedented swings which caused substantial whiplash (which many economists warned about at the time). While SVB was impacted first and worst due to their uniquely correlated risk factors and ill-fated risk management strategy, the Fed bears some responsibility for creating huge headwinds for banks.
* The Fed bailing out SVB and other banks the way they did is a short-term fix likely to cause worse systemic problems later.
