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.

Might be an American thing, we only have FDIC insurance up to a certain limit and the the difference of what happens in a bankruptcy is mechanically very different between a broker and a bank. Historically this has also been different for the stakeholders too, which is why people were not certain the number would actually result in them being able to withdraw funds from Silicon Valley Bank. Though recently they’ve de-facto increased the FDIC insurance limit by making sure whatever bank bought the distressed bank would accept the liability for the deposits over that.

I think it is an American vs Canadian thing. The list of ten largest banks in North America is nearly evenly split between American and Canadian banks[0], so the five main Canadian banks are 10x as large as their American counterparts, proportional to the population.

The only conceivable scenario where a major Canadian bank fails and any depositors are not made whole is one where the government has lost the ability to maintain the currency and the Canadian dollar is worthless anyway.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks_in_North...

But this matters in the context of parent comment because different things happen to money that you deposit in a bank compared money you have invested in, say, a mutual fund/ETF (which most of Blackrocks funds are) after they reinvest (even if both invest in the same loan!).

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.

There are plenty of (particularly debt/bond) investment funds structured this way too ie you buy an IOU from them (for varying reasons from tax to regulation to legal costs) - "securitization vehicles", CLOs, etc.