Not the point. The point is this: does gubmint involvement signal a crisis of the type private companies cannot work out for themselves?
Not necessarily cannot but don't need to assume the huge uncertainty of failing institutions' portfolio values which no private party has the money or willingness to "guarantee". Think back to John Pierpont Morgan and his ad hoc solution to financial panic of 1907... before existence of Federal Reserve in 1913 originally created specifically with the idea of stopping reliance on private interests to "protect" the economy and possibly avoiding the financial "panics" altogether.
For example, LTCM crisis of 1998 was handled by NY Fed branch getting most major banks (all except Bear Stearns, which refused to participate) to commit reserves to temporarily shore up LTCM's hugely leveraged portfolio (by some accounts of about 100:1) until it was unwound. This time it is bigger, involving many financial institutions (due to bundling and "spreading the risk", which was supposed to reduce it) and compounded by still unresolved real estate macroeconomic environment... Also some of LTCM "helpers" last time have themselves become the "victims" of current crisis, so there is now a need for Fed and Treasury to step in as a lender or intermediary "of the last resort". The most leveraged institutions failed first (New Century and smaller REITs, Countrywide, Bear Stearns), the ones not capitalized or liquid enough to weather the writeoffs and loss of profitability follow.