Valuation of investment in Bonds by SVB

KPMG is being questioned about their audit report of Silcon Valley bank (SVB) issued 14 days before the lender collapsed. The focus of their audit reporting is the application of the new auditor reporting standard. (KPMG did not mention any critical audit matters associated with the bonds):

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board adopted a new auditor reporting standard in June 2017 that will make the auditor's report more relevant to investors by requiring more information about the audit. This new PCAOB auditing standard, AS 3101, represents the most meaningful change to the auditors report since the 1940s.

The standard includes the communication of critical audit matters (CAMs), which will inform investors and other financial statement users of matters arising from the audit that required especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment, and how the auditor responded to those matters.

The focus for us is how SVB's valued $91 billion in bonds.

They were categorized as "held to maturity" bonds (common in the banking industry) so there was no adjustment to fair value, which had dropped to $76 billion. However, this drop in value was noted in the footnotes of the financials.

Your questions ( answer each separately):

1. Do you think it would have made a difference in the collapse of SVB if KPMG had included a CAM on the risk associated with the valuation of the bonds since the $15 billion loss, if reported, would have wiped out most of the banks total equity. I want your opinion and a supporting reason for your conclusion.

2. Do you think the audit firm should be liable and why?