> the bank was nigh criminally mismanaged

For sure this was a crime. It's being reported [1] that executives were aware of the risk and continued to purchase higher yielding assets.

From the article:

     In late 2020, the firm’s asset-liability committee received an internal recommendation to buy shorter-term bonds as more deposits flowed in, according to documents viewed by Bloomberg. That shift would reduce the risk of sizable losses if interest rates quickly rose. But it would have a cost: an estimated $18 million reduction in earnings, with a $36 million hit going forward from there. 

     Executives balked. Instead, the company continued to plow cash into higher-yielding assets. That helped profit jump 52% to a record in 2021 and helped the firm’s valuation soar past $40 billion. But as rates soared in 2022, the firm racked up more than $16 billion of unrealized losses on its bond holdings. 

     Throughout last year, some employees pleaded to reposition the company’s balance sheet into shorter duration bonds. The asks were repeatedly rejected, according to a person familiar with the conversations. The firm did start to put on some hedges and sell assets late last year, but the moves proved too late.

I wonder if any of this figured into their Chief Risk Officer's decision to leave the bank in early 2022.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-13/svb-failu...

edit: archive.is link to paywalled article [2]

[2] https://archive.is/HqVWn