|
|
|
|
|
by post-it
1030 days ago
|
|
I think that's an overly semantic argument. I can be as certain as I am of anything that the number in my RBC chequing account corresponds exactly to the amount of money I can withdraw or spend, and if that ever stops being the case I'll likely have bigger concerns than money. |
|
The mutual fund would use the cash to buy stocks or loans and you would be entitled to a share of that profit or loss (both upside and downside), but the mutual fund manager would typically only be paid an annual fee (1).
Money deposited in a bank gives you no upside, and, as you say, a tiny downside risk. (even before deposit insurance) Those taking the downside risk (as well as the upside) is mainly bank equity investors.
(1) As another commenter correctly pointed out there are also other sort of funds that look a bit more like banks for various reasons, but that also doesn't necessarily mean the fund manager is the one taking the upside/downside risk.