I may not be fully informed (please comment if that's the case), but it seems like there were really only a couple of instigating factors: 1) SVB invested too

I may not be fully informed (please comment if that's the case), but it seems like there were really only a couple of instigating factors: 1) SVB invested too heavily in long-term bonds, which reduced their ability to maintain liquidity. In particular, with the inverted yield curve, the recent increase in interest rates seems to me to have made it more likely that these long-term bonds were going to be underwater either way 2) Peter Thiel (allegedly?) instigated a run on the bank by advising people to pull money, partially(?) due to reports that they lacked sufficient liquidity I don't see the depositors being at fault here. In so far as the depositors had accounts in excess of the FDIC insured limits, first, it seems really difficult for companies to have a sufficient pool of liquid cash in an account somewhere such that they can pay payroll from it. Second, I have read accounts of startups being lent funds from SVB, but with the requirement that the funds be kept in SVB as well. SVB was the de facto choice, from how it sounds, so I don't blame the startups for going with what was a proven good solution... even if it was later proven not so good. Also, it seems like the FDIC is doing the right thing. All of the insured funds are covered, and it seems like they're also covering all of the deposits in excess by liquidating the assets at a loss, which the bank's shareholders will eat. Overall, it doesn't seem like a good situation, but we seem to have avoided a train wreck, at least from where I'm sitting. I may be missing things, and I don't have much experience in finance.