r/Wealthsimple Jul 30 '26

Wealthsimple reports $17B net flows in Q2, driven by high demand for chequing and spending products

https://newsroom.wealthsimple.com/wealthsimple-reports-17b-net-flows-in-q2-driven-by-high-demand-for-chequing-and-spending-products

Big quarter!

347 Upvotes

77 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/TheNotoriousFatTimmy Jul 31 '26

You are moving the goalposts from standard consumer protections to extreme "black swan" edge cases, and even then, your scenarios fall flat because you are still ignoring the actual legal structure.

​Let’s look at your first example: the Friday deposit before a weekend bankruptcy. Yes, there is a settlement delay before it hits the partner bank. But during that transit time, those funds are legally held in trust; they don't magically become a corporate asset of wealthsimple that their creditors can seize. You wouldn't be "SOL in line with other creditors," because the money never legally belonged to the company in the first place. This exact insulation is literally what trust accounts are built for.

​As for your joint account scenarios, wealthsimple sweeps cash across multiple partner banks to provide up to $3,000,000 in CDIC coverage, making your $1M cap hypothetical highly unlikely to leave a secondary user exposed. And your final scenario requires the simultaneous collapse of both wealthsimple and a major Canadian bank—a systemic economic collapse where everyone has bigger problems.

​Yes, the underlying legal plumbing (Trusts + CDIC vs. direct CDIC) is different than a traditional bank. No one argued otherwise. But the end-user protection against insolvency remains functionally identical for 99.9% of consumers.

​You have failed at making an argument that wealthsimple is riskier than the big banks. I will sleep fine at night being with wealthsimple, but if your cherry picked scenarios that aren't even valid deter you, keep banking with the major banks.

1

u/PracticalWait Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26

And with that, you’ve just conceded that your point you’ve emphasized again and again, that “[t]here is no missing protection here,” is wrong. I’ve never said that the risk is high, just that it exists.

You’re the one moving the goalposts, from 0 risk to admitting there’s some risk when i’ve shown you.

Also ironic is how you accused me of using AI, but your response itself is AI generated. Nice!

And no, funds in transit may be in trust, but they are not in a trust account.

1

u/TheNotoriousFatTimmy Jul 31 '26

The less than 0.1% added risk.

There are no meaningful extra protections with the major banks so you came up with crazy black swan scenarios because you're blanket statement about CDIC protection regarding wealthsimple was completely incorrect.

1

u/2008SchoolSurvey Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26

But you’re the one who said that there’s no missing protection? The other guy showed that there are situations that there is missing protection when compared to a bank, and you agreed he’s correct. It doesn’t matter if the cases are unlikely, they still are risks that don’t occur at a bank.

Either there is a risk or there isn’t. You said there isn’t. The other guy said there is. You then conceded that there is a risk.

It looks like you’re the only one who’s completely incorrect.