> But in the end, even if we could argue that SVB should have been more prescient, it is clear that the root cause of the problems is the actions of the governm

> But in the end, even if we could argue that SVB should have been more prescient, it is clear that the root cause of the problems is the actions of the government and the FED. Yes, the FED did leave interest rates too low for much too long. Rates should probably have been in the 3 to 4% range prior to the pandemic which means they should've been tightening more since about 2015. But lowering to essentially 0 during the early stage of the pandemic in order to keep us out of another great depression seems like the right decision. As for the SVB downfall: there's plenty of blame to go around. Yes, SVB should have diversified their bond buys (more shorter term durations mixed in). And as mentioned above, the Fed bears some blame. But so do the VCs who panicked startups into a bank run last week - the VCs who probably strongly recommended that their startups put their money in SVB in the first place. And the startups themselves could have been doing a better job spreading their money around to other banks in order to minimize their risk in case of bank failure (admittedly, most startups probably don't have this top of mind as they're busy with other things). Ultimately, the entire idea of a Silicon Valley Bank that was essentially just serving VC funded startups was probably a bad one from the start. Diversification of customer base, geography, industry served, etc. was absent. It's like monocrop farming: A pest that comes in and attacks your one crop can wipe you out more easily than if you grow a variety of crops.