Talk:Segregated fund

negative aspects
There should be some discussion on the article regarding the negative aspects of segregated funds. The guarantees come at a cost. An additional layer of fees in the order of 50 to 150 bps to pay for the guarantees greatly reduces the investor's rate of return. The maturity guarantee is one feature that I think is of dubious benefit. I've done 10 year reviews of mutual funds of various asset classes and finding one with a negative ten year rate of return is rare. And when it does happen, it's typically a segregated fund which makes me wonder if there hadn't been an extra layer of fees to cover the maturity guarantee, would the fund had a positive rate of return. 72.38.76.110 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Do the 10-year returns you've analyzed account for survivorship bias?
 * 207.216.83.226 (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This definitely leaves out issues such as those raised by the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators's Segregated Funds Working Group Issues Paper (May 2016). One issue, Regulatory arbitrage- is due to the reduced regulation that is enjoyed as an insurance product rather than a traditional investment.

I also expect that it may be encyclopedic to contrast segregated funds to regulated securities such as mutual funds, as to a layperson they appear to be similar, but are not covered by the same regulating bodies, nor require the same level of disclosure.

Would a reference to them being a product of Multi Level Marketing firms be of general interest? I ask as I am new to editing, but looked to wikipedia first to look for information about these links an then started conducting research only after not finding the information here. Relishcolouredhat (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)