Member Info for asimpleinvestor

Quote "I couldn't access the specific rule but under the FCA i.e. FSMA Act 2000 : ' Posting specific regulated investment recommendation without authorisation is a Breach of Rules. " Talking your Own Book " and giving an opinion on shares you own is one thing as long as its based on personal and not professional research - There will obviously be grey areas where moderators decide, which was my main point."

@troublesome Due to the severity of the allegation you made against me I contacted the FCA on your behalf. I asked the FCA to copy in to London South East the reply for their records and of course evidence against your allegation.

Re: Post I made on LSE Chat Lloyds forum?

FAO Supervision Hub

I would like clarification on whether describing my own investment holdings and personal trading decisions on a public forum constitutes a regulated activity or personal recommendation under FSMA 2000 and the RAO Does it:

1. Does this activity require FCA authorisation?

2. Is this communication a regulated activity under FSMA?

3. Would this be considered a personal recommendation?

Post included plus Url

What the FCA Supervision Hub included within the reply. I'm sure London South East will be in contact with you shortly in connection with your allegation, if indeed, they haven't already done so.

"1. Your post on London South East is compliant — it is personal commentary, not regulated advice, and does not breach FSMA or FCA rules. It doesn’t give investment advice or make a personal recommendation.

2. Under FSMA 2000 and the Regulated Activities Order, a recommendation only becomes a regulated activity if it’s presented as suitable for someone else or tailored to their circumstances. What you wrote was simply a factual description of your own holdings, your own actions, and your own reasoning, with no suggestion that anyone else should buy, sell, or follow the same approach.

3. There’s no inducement, no call to action, and no implication of suitability for others. It’s personal commentary, not advice and is permitted use on a public forum.

"Just to say I was apparently reported for libellous & defammatory remarks in addition, to breaking Rules 4. 5h and 5n earlier today.

I was also insulted by not knowing the rules yet accused of removing 95 % of posts here - amazing stuff !"

Bit of a spin on events, isn’t it? You alleged I was sharing financial advice without being licensed, which is a criminal offence, despite the fact I included a disclaimer against doing so. Then you claimed I was breaching postal rules in respect of advertising and promoting a share that is actively traded on the platform which includes forum chat pages such as this one. I asked you to clarify which rules I broke, even giving you a copy of them. You made wild claims you couldn’t back up and, in doing so, broke three rules yourself. You refused to apologise for your defamation, so I reported it. End of.

' Driven by the emotions of market players '

It means driven by sentiment or following the herd.

It will spike, but not what I’d call by a huge amount. Huge would be 10% or more, and I think we might see around 4% by year’s end. Keep in mind that inflation, calculated using a basket of goods that you personally don't use, isn’t necessarily the same as how it impacts you personally. Depending on your lifestyle, it could hit you harder, or you might barely feel it at all.

@Cevodniya

I do wish the content of your post was correct and not just a fable, but as seen in other posts of yours, they are often filled with fancy.

I am approximately £980,000,000 to £990,000,000 short, give or take, from becoming a billionaire, and the company is still, as you say yourself, in the embryonic stage; therefore, it is high risk and of great uncertainty, so anything could happen between now and 2030. However, if the last few months are taken as an example of growth, it is likely to be insignificant.

A question was asked why some people are selling, and it was answered with factually correct information. Out of the both of us, as you have confirmed, my wisdom and guidance far exceeds what you have to date offered yourself.

Have a nice day!

If that were the case, we wouldn’t see any sales today and indeed the future, and all trades would be buys. The stock has taken a hit due to the fluff presented by the board over the last few months. This is a one-off, low technical readiness level solution arrangement according to the government tender page, if it proceeds as currently it isn't a given, and these types of grants have likely already been factored into the company 5-year project plan.

@Sharequests Why not? If they’ve hit their target price, you sell to lock in your profit. This rise will be limited and likely to retrace if no further news comes in. You always sell into a rise, not wait for it to peak and start falling back when it becomes harder to sell.

Have you considered the reason many posts and threads are removed because the content that breaches the rules are your own. Every post you made was in direct contravention of the rules and almost every post you have made today have also been in contravention of the rules. So far today you have contravened Rule 4, Rule 5h and Rule 5n.

"As you've reported me, I have also decided to report your insulting remark at 23:23.2

What this one "You’re not reporting it because it doesn’t break any rules. However, you’ve made a false accusation of a rule breach when it’s been shown that no such rule exists. Are you going to apologize, or by not doing so admit to everyone on the forum that you’re not acting like an adult and are only here to troll the board?"

Its a question not an insulting remark and in direct response to a false allegation being made. It is also factually accurYou’re not reporting it because it doesn’t break any rules. However, you’ve made a false accusation of a rule breach when it’s been shown that no such rule exists. Are you going to apologize, or by not doing so admit to everyone on the forum that you’re not acting like an adult and are only here to troll the board?ate and your posting history supports the observation given in the last sentence. You're not very good at this are you..

"A good exercise in making people aware of ' The Rules ' is no bad thing anyway.2

@troublesome Especially yourself, I expect the rest of us already know them.

This MoD Transparency Notice is for a stand‑alone 3‑month testing contract, not a probationary phase leading automatically to a longer‑term award. It covers a defined evaluation of the integrated intelligence/decision‑support capability only. Any follow‑on work would require a separate procurement process, so nothing in this Notice implies an extension, options, or a multi‑stage framework. It’s simply a short, fixed‑term test contract worth ~£226k, pending final approval.

Https://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.html?shareprice=MU.US&share=Micron-Technology

https://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.html?shareprice=SNDK.US&share=Sandisk-Corp

https://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.html?shareprice=MRVL.US&share=Marvell-Technology-Inc

It’s challenging to advertise shares already listed on the platform, especially when forum pages are included to discuss them. It’s also hard to promote a share that the platform itself has already promoted. Finally, the allegation was related to sharing financial advice intended to divert investment away from Lloyds, yet the post contained nothing of the sort, making it a defamatory statement and a clear breach of the forum rules.

@troublesome Thanks for confirming that you won’t apologize for the false allegations you made. I’ve reported all your posts for libelous and defamatory remarks which is a serious breach of the forum rules.

May i direct you to quote "While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy."

You’ve made a personal attack based on false claims. You haven’t explained how mentioning shares on an investing forum amounts to advertising or promoting the three companies mentioned, especially when those companies are already available on the platform we’re using.

You’re not reporting it because it doesn’t break any rules. However, you’ve made a false accusation of a rule breach when it’s been shown that no such rule exists. Are you going to apologize, or by not doing so admit to everyone on the forum that you’re not acting like an adult and are only here to troll the board?

I'm not advertising any company if you suggest i am can you cut& paste the actual wording used that comes under the rule quote " link to or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication. For your benefit here is a copy of the post.

I hold positions in Micron Technology (MU), SanDisk (SNDK), and Marvell Technology (MRVL), all of which have experienced a slight consolidation over the past few days. Rather than liquidating, I am choosing to add to these positions, as I believe the underlying thesis remains strong.

Recent performance metrics (as of June 2026) are as follows:

Micron Technology has seen substantial momentum, with month-to-date gains reflecting the ongoing memory 'super-cycle' driven by high-bandwidth memory (HBM) demand.

Marvell Technology has shown strong performance, with month-to-date growth bolstered by its new Teralynx T100 launch and strategic AI-infrastructure partnerships.

SanDisk: Since its spin-off as an independent public company in early 2025, SanDisk has seen a significant multi-hundred-percent year-to-date return, reflecting its role as a pure-play NAND storage provider in the current AI-led market.

While these gains have been volatile, the overall trend remains upward rather than showing a sustained decline. I will continue to monitor for any signs of a structural shift, particularly regarding industry wide inventory levels, but for the current state of play, I am happy with these holdings and am taking this dip as an opportunity to increase my exposure. This isn't financial advice just my intended personal investing strategy.

"True but only related to the Board."

Rule states "post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic."

The board’s topic in this case was American shares, as indicated in the opening post, directly relating to AI share performance and suggesting that if invested in, they would be sold immediately upon opening. The thread title is ‘Dow,’ so the content here aligns with the topic. What doesn’t align with the topic is the allegation that I am breaking a non-existent rule and offering financial advice, when my post clearly includes a disclaimer stating it is not and that the content is purely personal strategy. Now back to the rules or maybe you are going to admit you're wrong and offer an apology for making a false allegation.

"Advertising. Promotion etc... especially any indication or suiggestion that people should move their investment or part away from Lloyds to another company."

The actual rule you're referring to is quote "post links to or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication."

Can you show me anywhere within my post that indicated or suggested that people should move their investment or part away from Lloyds to another company.

Your grasping at straws and probably don't even remember what I posted as what you infer doesn't exist within the text and content of the post. It is a direct reply to the opening post.

You haven't stated what financial advice I was offering and as you can see for yourself I broke no rules by sharing share information, historical gains or strategies.

Rule 5 is quote "You will not;

discuss illegal or criminal activities.

post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.

post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.

post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.

post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).

post live price or level 2 updates.

publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.

post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.

post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.

post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.

post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.

re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.

restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.

impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.

post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.

If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post."

Which rule are you referring to? If it’s the fifth line of rule five, which states, “posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading,” the information in question can be independently verified as true and should not be considered misleading. Share histories are readily available on numerous sites and indexes.