Needless to say, newsflow around the collapse of SVB was unrelenting on Monday.

Equally unrelenting was the selling pressure in shares of regional banks and smaller lenders.

It was easy to drown in the deluge of coverage, to which I contributed with my own breathless editorializing. Every aspect of the fiasco was its own story, or at least according to the financial media.

I’ve personally penned 15 articles on SVB (and the fallout from its implosion) since Thursday. You can imagine what that total is from news outlets which employee brigades of journalists.

On Monday afternoon, after penning another several SVB missives, I was left staring at a collection of analyst quotes looking for a home. Out of respect for readers’ patience, I eschewed the temptation to make each soundbite its own article.

Instead, I present the excerpts below as a compendium — an effort to provide additional context for an episode that will be enshrined in the annals of market history. I’d note that some quotes are more colorful than others. The cadence and tenor vary, consistent with the sources.

We are sympathetic to the idea that this might be a good case of Bernanke’s dictum to “use the right tool for the job.: While the Fed wants tighter financial conditions to restrain aggregate demand, they don’t want that to occur in a non-linear fashion that can quickly spiral out of control. And while they want credit to become more expensive, they shouldn’t want creditworthy borrowers to be shut out at any price. So, we continue to look for a 25bps hike at next week’s meeting. Even before the problems flared up in the banking sector, we thought a 50bps move would be ill-advised, and we still think that is the case. — Analysts led by Marko Kolanovic, JPMorgan

I think the economic and growth implications are actually far more nuanced than [the] first-blush take of this being a tactical impulse easing in financial conditions. Structurally and longer-term, it may in fact further “gum-up” the banking system as a transmission mechanism — i.e., actually tightening financial conditions looking further out. As this relates to the Fed’s inflation-fighting efforts, it may actually help the FOMC to achieve the FCI tightening they’ve needed to crimp demand-side inflation, but have failed at consistently. –– Charlie McElligott, Nomura

The situation in financial markets is highly fluid at present, and therefore so is the economic outlook. If the fallout from the failures of Silicon Valley and Signature Banks remains generally contained, then the FOMC should eventually be able to continue its monetary policy tightening to address inflation, which remains well above the Fed’s target. However, a broadening and deepening financial panic clearly would have a detrimental impact on the economy, potentially forestalling the need for more monetary policy tightening. For now, we lean toward a “pause” occurring at the March meeting, meaning no rate hike. We do not think CPI data for February will be a major determinant of whether the FOMC hikes rates at its next meeting. Ultimately, we believe monetary policymakers will only be able to tighten further if financial markets and the banking system show signs of stabilization. — Jay Bryson, Wells Fargo

This story is remarkable and it quickly morphed into an industry wide concern about unrealized losses that are a result of the rising interest rate environment. The amazing detail is that the primary securities at the heart of this crisis are Treasurys and Agency MBS, which are widely considered two of the safest assets on the planet. The culprit is poor timing on the purchases and ineffectively managing the interest rate risk. For years, we have warned about the market’s broken pricing mechanism as a result of overzealous central bank policies used to control markets and suppress volatility. It appears that after 13 years of static zero interest rate policy and near-ZIRP policy, SVB and a number of its banking brethren forgot how to manage basic interest rate risk during a tightening cycle. The bank’s investment missteps combined with its relatively concentrated fluid depositor base experiencing a financing slowdown was the recipe for disaster. — Mike O’Rourke, JonesTrading

We have a bailout of Silicon Valley venture capitalists funding Instagram filters that make cats look like dogs; all uninsured rich depositors despite the law saying only $250,000; and the Fed is starting a program to ensure that even as rates rise, rate-sensitive assets are tradable at par, rather than their market value. The implications are enormous. On one hand, no more bank runs; crisis over; and no taxpayer money (just lots and lots of Fed liquidity). Whether directly or indirectly through the inflation tax, the public ultimately pays one way or another. — Michael Every, Rabobank

Given the severity of the recent developments (i.e., largest bank failure since 2008) as well as the pace, if the FOMC were meeting today (which it is not), it would most likely pause to give the situation time to stabilize and allow regulators and investors time to reassess. While our baseline cynicism leaves us skeptical that the situation will quickly resolve in favor of enough stability to allow the Fed to immediately continue with a 25bps hike next week, we’re certainly of the mind that if the Committee wants to signal its inflation fighting resolve, staying the course is the most prudent approach. That being said, taking a breather in March to gain a better understanding of the contagion risk with the intention to restart the journey to terminal in May has its merits as well. We’re leaning toward the latter at the moment; but will incorporate tomorrow’s inflation data and any guidance from the WSJ‘s Fed-whisperer (Timiraos) into the final calculation. — Ian Lyngen and Ben Jeffery, BMO

We are not bank analysts, but from our perspective it seems SVB was very long the QE-trade and duration, taking cash deposits from firms buoyed by favorable venture capital funding on the back of QE-depressed interest rates, whilst re-investing those deposits in bonds, themselves artificially held up by QE. We will see how things settle down over the coming days, but let’s be clear that this isn’t good news for the VC sector already suffering from a major collapse in valuations. — Andrew Lapthorne, SocGen