I see it the other way around. The VCs started a panic. Name one other bank that could survive $42 billion in withdrawals in a single day. Other than Bank of Zimbabwe, obviously. Even Wells and JP Morgan would collapse under that strain. The VCs caused their own pain.
Yeah, but what are the specific cash amounts we are talking about?
Such extreme exposure to interest rate risk would've blown up in some other ways - say, a large client processing a routine payroll, executing stock buyback, or investing in an entity that banks elsewhere.
SVB had risks, VCs did what they should do to respond to said risk. Would you blame regular working class people in a retail bank run scenario for wanting to save their money from potential risk?
No. SVB price crashed 50% in one day and got downrated by Moodys, which exposed a bunch of red flags that would have resulted in a bank run regardless of what VCs said.
The stock crashed because of the initial pseudo bank run due to high interest rates on capital (at least that's the reason given for withdrawals), and the bank's subsequent failure to make up the difference after selling a treasuries portfolio. After which a real bank run occurred. Then the bank started down a path of a more desperate measure, and that's when they were shut down. At least that's what I got from an article.