Shareholder scrutiny preceded and caused the depositor scrutiny.

Edit: I guess the point is that without the threat of depositor scrutiny, shareholders would have no reason to care about SVB's poor investment decisions, since they were only a problem in a bank run scenario caused by depositors. Failing that, the only risk to shareholders would be regulators, and regulators weren't doing anything about this problem, they were enabling it. I think you're right about that.

We've seen the opposite since it started with a failed capital raise and double digit stock price declines.

Shareholders in SVB have already lost all their money, and approximately nobody is arguing for them to be made whole, so I’m not sure I understand this statement. The bailout is for depositors