GBC Asset Management

GBC Asset Management is a division of Pembroke Management Ltd., a privately held Canadian investment management firm that manages investment portfolios and separately managed accounts for Canadian pension funds, foundations, endowments, wealthy families and individuals, in addition to the GBC family of mutual funds. Since Pembroke's founding in 1968, the portfolio management team has applied fundamental analysis and conducted ongoing executive level interviews in order to identify high quality companies with compelling growth prospects, unrecognized intrinsic value and strong entrepreneurial leadership.

The Great Britain and Canada Investment Corporation, now known as the GBC American Growth Fund Inc., was incorporated in 1929 and has been managed by Pembroke Management since 1968. In order to expand and diversify the investment strategies offered by the firm under the GBC banner, Pembroke founded GBC Asset Management. GBC Asset Management is a subsidiary of Pembroke Management and is a mutual fund manager and dealer for the GBC family of mutual funds and Pembroke family of pooled funds.[1]

History

  • 1929 Great Britain and Canada Investment Corporation was incorporated in March and $11,000,000 was raised through the efforts of Nesbitt Thomson,[2] Govett Sons & Co.[3] and Iselin & Co.[4][5]
  • 1968 Pembroke Management Ltd. was founded[6] in September by Neil B. Ivory, Clifford L. Larock, A. Scott Taylor and Ian A. Soutar[7][8][9] to manage GBC Capital, which had previously been managed by Arbuckle Govett. The firm's name is a reference to Pembroke College, Cambridge.
  • 1970 The Pembroke Fund Ltd. was launched.
  • 1988 GBC Asset Management Inc. was founded by Ivory & Sime PLC, Pembroke Management Ltd. and Bob Stewart to market the GBC family of mutual funds in Canada and the United Kingdom.[10]In June 2007, GBC Asset Management appointed Elizabeth B. Dawson as the President and Director.[11]
gollark: It's easy to say that if you are just vaguely considering that, running it through the relatively unhurried processes of philosophizing™, that sort of thing. But probably less so if it's actually being turned over to emotion and such, because broadly speaking people reaaaallly don't want to die.
gollark: Am I better at resisting peer pressure than other people: well, I'd *like* to think so, but so would probably everyone else ever.
gollark: Anyway, I have, I think, reasonably strong "no genocide" ethics. But I don't know if, in a situation where everyone seemed implicitly/explicitly okay with helping with genocides, and where I feared that I would be punished if I either didn't help in some way or didn't appear supportive of helping, I would actually stick to this, since I don't think I've ever been in an environment with those sorts of pressures.
gollark: Maybe I should try arbitrarily increasing the confusion via recursion.
gollark: If people are randomly assigned (after initial mental development and such) to an environment where they're much more likely to do bad things, and one where they aren't, then it seems unreasonable to call people who are otherwise the same worse from being in the likely-to-do-bad-things environment.I suppose you could argue that how "good" you are is more about the change in probability between environments/the probability of a given real world environment being one which causes you to do bad things. But we can't check those with current technology.

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.