TRACK RECORD · FULL DISCLOSURE · CLIENT OUTCOMES
Evaluate Our Record: Performance Data with Full Disclosure
We publish performance data because you should be able to evaluate us before you hire us. But we also publish the caveats, because performance numbers without context are just marketing. Every return figure below represents real client money, managed in real market conditions, since our founding in 2006.
Real outcomes. Real limitations. No cherry-picking.
Why We Show You Everything — Including What Didn't Work
Most firms publish their best-performing composites and bury the rest. They'll show you a five-year chart that starts conveniently after a drawdown, or they'll present model portfolio returns that no actual client ever received. We don't maintain multiple composites designed to make us look good. We maintain composites designed to show you what actually happened.
Our numbers below represent the asset-weighted average of all discretionary client accounts in each strategy, net of our management fee, since inception. That means every account — including the ones that started at an unfortunate time, the ones with unusual cash flow patterns, and the ones where our thesis took longer to play out than we expected. We don't exclude accounts that make our numbers look worse.
A caveat we think is important: past performance is not indicative of future results. We mean that — it's not just a regulatory disclaimer. Markets are non-stationary. What worked from 2006 to 2016 may not work from 2026 to 2036. Interest rate regimes shift, correlations break down during stress periods, and strategies that outperformed in one macro environment can underperform in the next. We've seen this firsthand — our current market outlook reflects our thinking on how the current environment differs from the past decade.
What we can show you is our process, our decision-making, and our willingness to document what went wrong. Every quarter since Q3 2007, our six-person team has published a "What Went Wrong" report alongside our standard performance commentary. These reports detail positions that lost money, theses that were incorrect, and timing decisions we'd make differently in hindsight. We believe this discipline — knowing every mistake will be published — makes us more careful investors. You can read these reports through the client portal or request samples during your initial conversation.
Review Real Outcomes: Four Client Engagements in Detail
Each case study below is a real engagement. Names are used with permission. Results are net of fees and specific to these clients' circumstances — your results will differ based on your Investment Policy Statement, timing, tax situation, and risk tolerance. We chose these four because they represent different client types, portfolio sizes, and challenges. For a broader view of how our investment strategies are structured, visit our strategies page.
Rideau Mechanical Ltd.
$4.2M in retained earnings sitting in GICs and a high-interest savings account at a single bank. The owner was 12 years from a planned business exit, and inflation was eroding purchasing power at approximately 2.8% annually. At the prevailing GIC rates (1.4%–2.1%), the real return on these holdings was negative — meaning the company's war chest was shrinking in purchasing power every year. The owner wanted these funds to be available for either an acquisition opportunity or to supplement the eventual sale proceeds, but had no framework for managing the liquidity-return trade-off.
We developed a corporate Investment Policy Statement tied to the 12-year exit timeline, with a specific liquidity ladder ensuring $800K remained accessible within 30 days for operational contingencies. The allocation: laddered investment-grade bonds (60%) with maturities staggered from 1 to 10 years, Canadian dividend equities (25%) selected from our active research coverage to maximize capital dividend account (CDA) eligibility, and a short-duration pooled fund (15%) for near-term liquidity. The equity allocation was deliberately structured around eligible dividends to route as much income as possible through the CDA — allowing tax-free distributions to the shareholder.
6.1% annualized over 5 years, net of our management fee. The portfolio generated $387,000 in CDA-eligible tax-free amounts over that period. The owner increased shareholder draws by $60,000 per year without additional personal tax liability — effectively giving himself a raise funded entirely by smarter corporate cash management. During the March 2020 drawdown, the portfolio declined 4.7% peak-to-trough versus 12.3% for a 60/40 balanced benchmark, validating the defensive construction. Assets are custodied at CIBC Mellon with full segregation from our firm.
Association des municipalités rurales du Québec (AMRQ)
$7.5M reserve fund held entirely at a single institution's GICs yielding 1.6%. The board was concerned about two issues: concentration risk (100% exposure to one financial institution) and real return erosion against the association's 3.2% annual operational cost inflation. At 1.6% nominal, the fund was losing approximately $120,000 in real purchasing power every year. The board also needed the reserve to meet specific policy requirements — maintaining a minimum of 18 months of operating expenses in accessible holdings at all times.
We conducted a comprehensive reserve fund study, modelling three allocation scenarios with different risk-return profiles. Each model was stress-tested against the 2008 financial crisis, the 2020 COVID drawdown, and a hypothetical 300-basis-point rate shock. The board selected the moderate model after a bilingual presentation to the full 14-member governance committee. The allocation: 45% government and provincial bonds (spread across five provinces), 30% investment-grade corporate bonds, 15% Canadian equities (dividend-focused, no single position exceeding 3% of the fund), and 10% global equities hedged to CAD. All positions held directly — no pooled funds, no embedded fees beyond our disclosed management fee.
5.3% annualized net return from 2019 through 2024, outpacing the association's cost inflation by 2.1% per year. The reserve grew from $7.5M to $9.1M while the association continued to draw operating funds as needed. Concentration risk was eliminated — the portfolio now has exposure to 47 individual issuers across government, corporate, and equity holdings. The 2022 rate-hike drawdown was limited to 5.2% versus 11.8% for a standard balanced mandate. The board adopted Burnabilly's quarterly reporting format for their annual member disclosure, citing it as a governance improvement. The engagement is now in its sixth year.
Dr. Amara Osei
$1.8M in a corporate investment account managed by a bank-owned dealer. Dr. Osei was paying a 1.95% advisory fee plus an average 0.82% MER on the underlying mutual funds — an all-in cost of 2.77% that she wasn't fully aware of until our complimentary fee audit revealed the total. Over the previous three years, she had paid $148,000 in total investment fees, including $61,000 in undisclosed trailer commissions embedded in the mutual fund MERs. The portfolio held 14 mutual funds with significant overlap — our analysis showed that 9 of the 14 funds held the same top-10 positions, meaning she was paying 14 sets of fees for what amounted to three or four distinct exposures.
The fee audit revealed the full cost structure in a single-page summary — something Dr. Osei told us she'd never seen despite 11 years with her previous advisor. We transitioned the portfolio to a direct-held model using individual securities and low-cost ETFs (average MER 0.12%), with a flat 0.95% management fee from Burnabilly. The transition was executed over six weeks to minimize market timing risk and manage the tax consequences of liquidating the mutual fund positions. We also restructured the portfolio to emphasize eligible Canadian dividends within the professional corporation, maximizing CDA credits.
All-in costs dropped from 2.77% to approximately 1.08% — a reduction of 61%. Annual savings: $30,400, which compounds significantly over Dr. Osei's 20+ year investment horizon. At the previous fee level, she would have paid an estimated $940,000 in cumulative fees over 20 years; at the current level, that figure drops to approximately $365,000 — a lifetime savings of $575,000. Returns in the first two full calendar years: 8.2% and 5.7%, both above the blended benchmark. Dr. Osei has since referred two colleagues in her practice group, both of whom underwent similar fee audits with comparable findings.
Taggart Group of Companies
$22M liquid portfolio with no framework connecting the risk profile of liquid assets to the company's substantial illiquid real estate holdings. In 2020, the company experienced a correlated drawdown of 19% across total assets because the liquid portfolio was overweight equity REITs (14% of portfolio) and Canadian bank stocks (23% of portfolio) — both of which are highly correlated with direct real estate exposure during stress periods. In effect, the company's "diversified" liquid portfolio was doubling down on the same risks embedded in its core business. The board wanted a liquid allocation that would act as genuine ballast when real estate markets weakened.
We built a custom correlation matrix between the company's real estate cash flows (segmented by property type: commercial, industrial, and residential) and 22 liquid asset classes, using 15 years of quarterly data. The analysis revealed that Canadian financials, equity REITs, and domestic infrastructure equities all had correlations above 0.65 with the company's real estate income during stress periods. The new allocation eliminated equity REITs entirely, underweighted Canadian financials to 4% (from 23%), and emphasized global equities ex-financials (35%), infrastructure bonds (20%), investment-grade corporates (25%), commodities (10%), and cash equivalents (10%). Every position is held directly at CIBC Mellon with full transparency through our Open Book client portal.
In the 2022 rate-hike cycle, the liquid portfolio returned +3.4% while the company's real estate holdings declined an estimated 8–12% in market value. This was precisely the outcome the new allocation was designed to produce — the liquid assets provided genuine diversification when the core business was under pressure. Total portfolio volatility (liquid + illiquid, measured quarterly) dropped 31% compared to the three years prior to our engagement. The relationship has since expanded to include management of a $3.8M employee profit-sharing pool using our Balanced Growth strategy, and Burnabilly now provides quarterly investment briefings to the Taggart board of directors.
Measure Our Impact Across Two Decades of Client Outcomes
These numbers span 20 years — since our founding in 2006 — and roughly 400 client relationships across individuals, professional corporations, private companies, and institutional mandates. We don't cherry-pick time periods, and we don't exclude accounts that closed.
The 92% retention rate counts every account that's been open five years or more. The 8% who left include clients who moved away, businesses that were sold, and a handful who wanted products we don't offer (leveraged strategies, cryptocurrency, private equity). We track departures because the reasons people leave tell us as much as the reasons they stay.
The $31K fee savings figure comes from complimentary fee audits conducted between 2020 and 2025 — it's the average gap between what clients were paying their previous advisor and what they pay now with Burnabilly, inclusive of all underlying fund costs. For corporate accounts over $3M, the savings are typically higher. For smaller personal accounts, somewhat lower. We publish the average because that's what it is.
The 180 securities in active research coverage means our investment team writes and maintains internal research notes on each position — including a specific thesis, a target valuation range, and explicit conditions under which we would sell. This coverage spans Canadian equities, select U.S. and international names, and the individual bond issuers in our fixed-income strategies.
And yes, we've published 76 consecutive quarterly "What Went Wrong" reports without skipping one — every quarter since Q3 2007. Not because we enjoy admitting mistakes, but because we've noticed we make fewer of them when we know they'll be in writing. These reports are available to all clients through the Open Book portal and are part of what we believe separates our approach from the industry standard.
Know Exactly How We Calculate These Numbers
Want to know exactly how we calculate these numbers? Good — you should. Most firms bury their methodology in fine print. We put it here, in plain language, because the methodology determines whether the numbers mean anything. Here's the full detail.
Time-Weighted, Daily, Asset-Weighted
Returns are time-weighted, calculated daily, and asset-weighted across all accounts in each strategy. This is the industry standard for measuring manager skill independently of client cash flow timing. We use this method because it prevents large inflows or outflows from distorting the return figures — you're seeing the performance of our investment decisions, not the timing of client deposits. Daily valuation means we don't smooth or estimate mid-period; every position is marked to market at close.
Net of All Our Fees — What Your Portfolio Actually Earned
All returns are reported net of Burnabilly's management fee (which ranges from 0.65% to 1.25% depending on account size and type — see our services page for the full fee schedule). Underlying ETF costs (where applicable, typically 0.05%–0.25% MER) are also deducted from the return figures. Trading commissions, where incurred, are reflected in the purchase/sale prices and therefore embedded in returns. The number you see is the number your portfolio actually earned — the amount by which your account value increased, after every cost has been taken out.
Individual Results Vary — Here's Why
Client-specific results vary based on individual Investment Policy Statement parameters, timing of contributions and withdrawals, tax situation (personal vs. corporate, province of residence), and any client-directed constraints (e.g., ESG exclusions, sector restrictions, concentrated position considerations). The composites are asset-weighted averages — your account will not match them exactly. In most years, roughly two-thirds of accounts in each composite fall within ±1.5% of the reported figure. Outliers are typically explained by large mid-year cash flows or client-specific tax-loss harvesting activity.
No Model Portfolios. No Backtests. No Hypotheticals.
We do not use model portfolios or hypothetical backtested returns anywhere on this website or in any client communication. Every number represents actual client money managed in real market conditions, with real transaction costs, real tax consequences, and real emotional pressure during drawdowns. We believe hypothetical returns are misleading because they don't account for the behavioural realities of managing real money — the pressure to deviate from strategy during volatility, the cash flow disruptions that come with real businesses, and the tax constraints that limit theoretical optimal rebalancing.
Composite Data Available on Request — Walk-Throughs Encouraged
Full composite data is available upon request and is prepared in compliance with CFA Institute guidance on performance presentation. Composites include inception dates, number of accounts, dispersion measures, and benchmark comparisons. We'll walk you through the numbers in person if you'd like — that's usually more useful than a PDF, because you can ask questions about specific periods, drawdowns, or decisions. To request composite data or schedule a walk-through, reach out to our team. We respond within one business day.
See How This Approach Would Work with Your Specific Portfolio
We'll review your current holdings, identify hidden fees, model how our strategies would have performed with your specific constraints and tax situation, and walk you through the numbers — including the periods where our approach underperformed. The initial conversation is complimentary, typically runs 45–60 minutes, and comes with a written fee audit you can keep regardless of whether you become a client. No obligation, no pitch.
Request Your Complimentary Fee AuditOr call us directly at (807) 876-1862