KJP

Of course he's not endorsing rape. But take a look at the last sentence of that joke. What he's endorsing (and what he may or may not actually believe) is that women should be virginal and pure, while it's fine for men to carouse. And any women who doesn't at least act virginal and pure is a [pick your favorite slur]. That's the context. That's the societal backdrop that makes the joke work and which the joke reinforces. But it's people who point out that double standard who are "uptight" and "repressed"? Perhaps it's the men who complain about the criticism who are "uptight" about women's sexuality.

I'm not aware of decisions holding that a link to infringing material cannot constitute contributory infringement as a matter of law, even where the website owner knows about the link to the infringing material. Do you have any cites or links to other sources on which you are relying?

According to POTUS, "integrity" is an alt fact for losers. I for one fully support Wikileaks on Boston financiers. People above are doing god's Trump's libertarian work. The person who put this online is violating an agreement they made and that is wrong. But once it is online already, reading it doesn't violate any agreement, because if you are already an investor you have already read it, and if you are not you have made no secrecy agreement with anyone. By posting a link to copyrighted material, are you exposing the owner of this board to a claim of contributory copyright infringement?

I acknowledged and continue to acknowledge that there is room for vigorous debate and substantial disagreement about policy, and there are non-racist reasons for favoring many of Trump's policies. But Trump's rhetoric and reasoning is fundamentally racist. We saw another example of that this week with his "Bernhard Langer" story. Here's one account of the story, as told by Trump: "The witnesses described the story this way: Mr. Langer, a 59-year-old native of Bavaria, Germany — a winner of the Masters twice and of more than 100 events on major professional golf tours around the world — was standing in line at a polling place near his home in Florida on Election Day, the president explained, when an official informed Mr. Langer he would not be able to vote. Ahead of and behind Mr. Langer were voters who did not look as if they should be allowed to vote, Mr. Trump said, according to the staff members — but they were nonetheless permitted to cast provisional ballots. The president threw out the names of Latin American countries that the voters might have come from." Trump's long support of birtherism and the way he talk about "inner cities" are additional examples. Whether specific policies of Trump's are a good idea is a different question than whether the rhetoric and reasoning he employs is racist. I'm sure people disagree and hear different things when Trump speaks, just like people hear different things when the phrase "Black Lives Matter" is said.

You answered your own question -- bullies target people they perceive to be weak. It's also a very symbolic part of Trump's racial [and racist] political strategy that has proven successful, so far. This is nonsense. Maybe in some aspects for Trump I'd agree, but in relation to Mexico, its utterly absurd. The same could be said about Canada. The difference is you don't have record numbers of Canadians running over the border, joining gangs, committing crimes, and filling up your already over crowded prisons. Mexico is definitely a problem. Their entire country is run by cartels and their government is corrupt. It's in a lot of ways similar to Chicago. Another small, poor area I'm sure many think Trump is bullying. What I like about Trump is where he sees a problem, he gets on it right away and tries to fix it. What makes me nervous about Trump? His judgment, temper, and ultimately whether or not he is capable of solving all these problems. But at least now the problems are being dealt with. Your descriptions remind me of Trump's descriptions of "inner cities," another dog whistle phrase. They are exaggerated parodies that play on the deep-seated racial fears in this country. I'm sure you disagree and just think you're "keepin' it real" or "not PC." We'll agree to disagree.

There is a lot of room for reasoned debate about what is or is not necessary for border security, trade, etc. Part of Trump's political strategy, however, is to try to short-circuit that debate through both overt and "dog whistle" appeals to racism.

You answered your own question -- bullies target people they perceive to be weak. It's also a very symbolic part of Trump's racial [and racist] political strategy that has proven successful, so far.

Before discussing whether they make sense, it would be helpful to know what you want to use these "rules of thumb" for.

All return related threads have a very healthy amount of survivorship bias. It would be very interesting to know whether the answers to your questions from the people who managed to earn 30+% CAGR over 10 years are actually any different than the answers of the people who had terrible returns for three years and then gave up, e.g., both groups used leverage or invested heavily in levered equities or both groups at least intended to invest in long-term compounders. The winners are generally happy to talk; I don't know how to track down the other group.

Hong Kong is still available through Fidelity, right?

I suspect some posters may have regulatory issues (or issues with their compliance officers) regarding anything that could be considered client solicitation (or posting returns, for that matter). If there are posters whose research/posts have impressed you, you can private message them and ask. If they are looking for clients, you'll get a quick response.

Why do you say so? How do they compare with Shenzhou/Eclat/Hansae/Youngone in terms of valuation and growth? I think the historical results tell the story here, once you account for the noise created by fluctuations in cotton prices. The Red Corner blog has a series of posts (and comments thereto) about Texhong, its business model and management. If I had to sum up the many thousands of words in those materials, it would be the following quote, which I've lifted from a comment to one of the posts on that blog: I am suggesting that Texhong has important unit cost advantages in yarns and that it therefore enjoys important competitive advantages notwithstanding the fact that he product that it sells is a commodity. You can look at Texhong's annual reports for 2006 and 2014 and contrast the following: General & Administrative costs per metric tonne of yarn Selling expense per MT of yarn (Selling expense = Selling & Distribution minus Transport) The unit cost DECLINE in these two line items between these two years should sum to approximately 1450 yuan per MT. 1450/MT is 6% of the LT average selling price of yarn (24,000 RMB/MT). So a 4.5% operating margin in 2006 becomes, because of scale/scope economies, a 10.5% margin. At constant asset turnover of 1.8x, Texhong's ROIC morphs from (1.8 x 4.5%) = 8% to (1.8 x 10.5%) = 19% At debt/equity of 50%, ROE improves from 16% to 38% Is it sustainable? Well the source is unit cost advantage. Yarn producers and yarn buyers are all price takers so global yarn prices -- and the therefore the prices at which Texhong sells its yarn -- do not go down just because Texhong improved its cost structure. What will happen when it is selling a million MT of yarn? How wide will the gap be then between Texhong and the 98,000 other yarn manufacturers in the PRC? **** Regarding the other companies you mentioned, are they actually comparable? Texhong makes yarn. Is Shenzou, for example, a yarn manufacturer, or is it further downstream (fabrics and garments)?

Thanks EDIT: The nonamestocks blog posts are quite useful. Thanks again for the pointer.

Do either of these have public financials?

~22% in USD, pre-tax

There's a timing mismatch. The posts from the 2016 thread are nearly all from the two-week period before and after New Years. So, it's really a thread about the best ideas at that time. The 2016 results thread, however, reflects investment decisions made throughout the year, rather than a portfolio fixed as of mid-January 2016.

Texhong Textiles

Cambium Learning Group

In an earlier thread that I can no longer find, the issue of whether insider trading required a breach of duty was discussed. As several commentors mentioned, the Supreme Court had a case on its docket that involved the legal standard for determining whether a breach of duty had occurred in the context of "gifts" of inside information to friends and relatives. Two days ago, the Supreme Court decided that case. For those interested, the decision can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-628_m6ho.pdf

Someone on Reddit Security Analysis thread collects them every quarter. There's already 40 or so posted for Q3 2016.

The companies discussed in this blog post may interest you: http://www.nonamestocks.com/2016/11/comx-and-sima-updated-numbers.html

Portfolio is long only. The following are each ~ 7% - 12% positions depending on the day, and total about ~70% of my portfolio: Gaia (GAIA) Rentech (RTK) Howard Hughes (HHC) Black Diamond (BDE) Texhong Textiles (HK:2678) Flybe (LN: FLYB) Dream Office (D.UN; DRETF) Smaller positions, some of which are in the process of being sold off: Advant-E (ADVC) PD-RX Pharmaceuticals (PDRX) Fortune Industries (FDVF) [About to be cashed out in short-form merger] IDW Media Holdings (IDWM) Parkit Enterprises (PKT; PKETF) Xpel Technologies (XPLT) Macro Enterprises (MCR) Judges Scientific (LN:JDG) QVC (QVCA) Keck Seng (HK:0184)

This is not correct. See Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222 (1980); United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997). If you have authority for the proposition that a breach of duty and personal benefit (the quid pro quo Roark referred to) are not required, I'd be interested to see it. EDIT: I should mention that what you describe is the prudent way to act, regardless of what the technical nuances of insider trading law may be.

It's quite charitable to assume that this type of behavior only occurred "right at the end."

The SEC only has civil enforcement powers, meaning fines, disgorgement and injunctive relief, e.g., director-officer bars. It does not have criminal enforcement powers and cannot put people in jail. A criminal prosecution would be brought by the DOJ or a U.S. Attorney, or, in theory, a state prosecutor. It remains to be seen whether a criminal indictment is coming.