It is a bailout - the 2008 bailouts were done to save the deposits and investments inside the banks, not 'the shareholders' as so many seem to try to use as an escape argument. Its because if the banks' hollowed assets were not 'made whole', the depositors would not have their money anymore.

Precisely the case with SVB as of this very moment - a sunken bank that does not have enough assets to cover its deposits is being bailed out by the state.

By the state and taxpayer money, make no mistake - even if the funds will not directly come from the US govt., the fees that they will impose on the banks by using the nation-wide bank insurance fund will eventually get imposed on everyone with a bank account in the US by those very banks in turn. So again, the public will pay.

Actually, its beyond using taxpayer money - if you are a taxpayer and your children have bank accounts too, they will also pay the fee instead of just you paying a tax.

Well, the term "bailout" usually implies two facts:

(1) Shareholders aren't zeroed in a bailout

(2) The government pays for a bailout

Neither is true here.

> (1) Shareholders aren't zeroed in a bailout

If uninsured depositors took losses in the run on SVB, lots of other banks were going down too in the coming weeks. I think the argument is not that SVB is getting bailed out but investors in all the other poorly funded banks that won't fail.

Important to note shareholders, executives, etc still get nothing.

Taxpayers are not paying for this, banks collectively are.

The Venn diagram showing federal tax payers and people with a bank account is a circle.

Because the shareholders lose their shareholding.