In today's version of "Doomerism Debunked" we're looking at the idea of an agentic bank run and why it's overstated at best and wrong at worst. The argument goes like this. AI agents will sweep household cash out of 0.1% checking accounts and into 4% high yield savings accounts, banks will lose the cheap deposits they use to make loans, and the whole system gets into trouble. But think about where that money actually goes. When cash moves from a checking account at Bank A to a savings account at Bank B, Bank A's deposits fall and Bank B's deposits rise by the same amount. Total deposits in the banking system don't change. And most of the fintechs in the chart are either banks themselves or sweep your cash into partner banks. The money never leaves the system. It just changes addresses. It's also worth remembering that banks don't lend out deposits. Loans create deposits. Banks need deposits to settle payments and hold reserves, and if they lose cheap ones they can replace them with more expensive ones. That's a real cost, but it's a cost, not a collapse. Deposits really leave the banking system mainly through a few channels, such as physical cash withdrawals, payments to the Treasury (which comes back when spent), or money that ends up at the Fed's reverse repo facility. A bot moving your savings to a better rate isn't one of them. Now, the stronger version of this argument deserves a fair hearing. SVB was a run from one bank to other banks, and it still killed the bank. If AI agents can move uninsured deposits in hours instead of days, individual bank runs could happen faster than they used to. And sticky, low rate deposits have always been part of how banks manage interest rate risk. If that stickiness goes away, weaker banks have to manage their balance sheets more carefully. That's a legitimate risk for specific banks with bad balance sheets. It is not a system-wide run. The more likely outcome is that banks have to pay savers closer to market rates and their net interest margins get squeezed. That's bad for bank shareholders. It's pretty good for everyone holding cash. So yes, agentic banking will probably change the economics of deposits. But calling it a bank run confuses a repricing of bank funding with a panic driven collapse of the system. Those are very different animals.