This is correct. Scrum (and all of the other PM rituals) exist because the people controlling the money need to attach budgets to projects in order to figure out whether they're worth doing or not (or more loosely to teams, to figure out if they're profitable or not). Once a project has a budget, then it needs to be tracked.
It's enormously frustrating to be on the other side of the table, and to have a recalcitrant development team missing estimate after estimate, sometimes by orders of magnitude. Either it's your money that's slowly being incinerated, or you have to go back to investors and tell them that you decided to spend on X, and X is only 1/3rd as far along as the tech lead told you it would be.
But it's also frustrating to be on the developer's side of the table. We're not generally included in the business strategy meetings, because we don't generally have MBAs. (Also because we're expensive, and having us sit in "irrelevant" meetings, especially when we're "behind" anyway, seems like a poor use of resources.) As a result, we're two steps removed from the decisions that matter - and not in the room when we could potentially have suggested a better approach to solving the original problem.
Personally I'm done with the corporate software world - I'm riding the fractional/freelance bus until retirement. But, I wonder if these kinds of dysfunctional dynamics could be fixed with multidisciplinary teams. E.g. imagine a team of several devs, a couple mbas, and a few sales people, responsible as a group for the team's financial position in the company. Strange bedfellows, maybe, but if each person's success depended on everybody else in the team hitting their goals, the communication patterns could end up being quite different.