Correct but that equilibrium is not as beneficial to the USA then if say the bank didn't shift the savings to China so that the bank had excess savings it needed to invest in the USA (since it can't go to China and we'll ignore all other countries). The banks would start offering credit at extremely low rates to encourage investment to get rid of its excess savings. This would overall reduce the profit of the bank and increase investment in the USA which would be a net benefit to the USA's wealth but the bank's profits would decrease.

Between the two scenarios, the one I just described benefits the USA more.

Without complicating it too much, I will note that the bank's maintain and free market economists etc... that my Scenario 1 (money going to China) leads to greater global wealth and since the banks are owned by Americans, the profits come back to America over the long-term. More wealth in China for example means more potential for trade and the net benefits in the end improve the lives of Americans over the long-term. This is a very idealistic take because it assumes the profit will come back to America and won't just be used on purchases in other countries or to again further invest in other countries. Nothing says the money has to cycle back and with companies now more able to do the work by offshoring in other countries, it doesn't even necessarily lead to more American jobs. Furthermore, there's nothing to say China's increase in wealth will cycle back to the USA either because China can implement trade barriers and perhaps leverage its wealth to get better trade agreements with other countries and actually reduce America's overall wealth even further.