Editorial Policy

Investor Souk (investorsouk.com) is a financial literacy and research platform. This policy explains who writes here, how we choose topics, research, write and check our work, how we handle personal-experience posts, and how we correct mistakes and keep editorial work separate from money. Please read it with our About page and Disclaimer.

Last updated: 21 October 2026

1. Our Purpose

Investor Souk began as a personal spreadsheet. Whenever a salesperson, an advertisement or conventional wisdom suggested what to do with money, we ran the numbers ourselves. This site is that research, written down and shared.

Each post takes one real financial decision (a product, a strategy, or a popular belief) and sets out three things: the popular story, what the arithmetic actually shows, and a reusable framework the reader can apply to the next decision. We aim to help readers build their own logic, not hand them our conclusions.

2. What We Are, and What We Are Not

We are ordinary investors, with backgrounds in banking, insurance, risk, public administration and education, sharing our research process and reasoning for educational purposes.
We are not investment advisers, research analysts, portfolio managers or stock brokers, and we are not registered with SEBI or any other financial regulator.
We are not a news service, a tips service or a "get rich quick" publication. We do not publish buy, sell or hold calls, price targets, return forecasts or personalised advice, and we do not answer individual "what should I do with my money" requests.

3. Who Writes Here

Posts appear under the shared byline "Prakashak," a pen name used by a small group of contributors. We keep our personal and professional lives separate, so we do not publish our names, employers or career details.
Anonymity does not exempt us from accountability. Every post is the responsibility of the authors, who can be reached through the Contact page, and we show our working so readers can check it themselves.
Contributors' backgrounds (see the About page) explain why we read documents the way we do. They are not a reason to follow our conclusions.
Optional: where a post draws on a contributor's relevant background, we may note this generally, for example "reviewed by a contributor with an information-security background," without naming anyone.

4. Editorial Standards

Numbers before narrative. Claims are tested against arithmetic wherever possible. We show our assumptions, inputs and formulas so readers can rerun them.
Frameworks over verdicts. Posts teach a method that can be reused. A post should leave the reader better able to decide for themselves, not more dependent on us.
Examples, not recommendations. Stocks, funds, products or companies named in a post are case studies or illustrations. Naming one is not an endorsement, and leaving one out is not a criticism.
Plain language, no pressure. We avoid unnecessary jargon, artificial urgency, fear-based framing and "act now" language.
Balance. We try to state the strongest case for the view we are examining, and we point out where a framework fails or where reasonable people disagree.
Honest about uncertainty. We separate facts, assumptions and opinions, and we say when numbers are simplified, rounded or hypothetical.

5. Research and Sourcing

Primary sources first. We prefer official documents such as regulator websites and circulars, scheme information documents, factsheets, annual reports, exchange filings, government notifications and the agreements or disclosure documents themselves.
Third-party data. Where we use aggregators, news or other secondary data, we aim to identify the source and the date, and we flag data we could not independently verify.
Time-stamping. Tax rules, product terms, rates and regulations change. Where a post depends on them, we aim to state the date or financial year it reflects.
Checking numbers. Calculations are rechecked before publishing. We show the formulas used so readers can verify them.
Original work. Posts are written by us. We do not copy others' work. Where we build on someone else's analysis, we attribute it.

6. Use of AI Tools

How we use AI. Posts begin with the authors' own experiences, documents and rough notes. We use AI tools to help structure, draft and polish the text, and sometimes to check calculations or suggest wording. The authors review and edit the final text and are responsible for everything published.
Verification. AI output can be inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. We do not publish factual claims, figures or calculations from AI tools without checking them against the underlying documents or a reliable source.
Demonstrations. Where a post shows AI-generated output as an example of a method, it is labelled as an illustration, not as advice or a source of truth.
Disclosure. Where AI materially shaped a post, we say so in a short note at the end of the post, and we state our general approach here.

7. Personal-Experience Posts and Naming Companies

Some posts describe our own experiences with a company or product, using documents we hold.

Facts versus reading. We distinguish what the documents say and what happened from our interpretation and assumptions. Where we model something, such as a penalty scenario, we say it is our assumption.
Documents we hold. We rely on documents we actually have, such as agreements, statements and emails. We do not publish allegations we cannot support.
Process, not people. We critique processes and systems. We do not name or shame individual employees or other private individuals, and we remove or redact third parties' personal details such as names, phone numbers and addresses, and account or ID numbers.
Right of reply. Where a post makes critical claims about a named company, we note a response where practicable and will add a company's response or correction if it is supplied to us and is relevant.
Not a verdict. A post about one company's conduct in one case is not a finding about every similar company, and not a legal determination.
Legal or regulatory matters. Where a matter is ongoing, such as a complaint or notice, we describe it factually and may update the post when the position changes.

8. Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial independence. Advertisers, affiliates and sponsors do not influence what we write or what conclusions we reach. We do not accept payment to publish, change or remove an analysis.
Affiliate and referral links. Some links may earn us a commission at no extra cost to you. These earnings help cover the cost of running the site. A link's presence does not mean we endorse the product.
Sponsored content. Any sponsored or paid content will be clearly labelled and kept separate from our independent analysis.
Own positions. The authors may hold, buy or sell securities or products discussed on the site. Where a holding is material to a post, we aim to disclose it in that post. Holdings can change at any time, and we are not obliged to update readers.
No money handling. We do not accept, pool or manage anyone's funds, and we will never ask you to send money for investment or any other purpose.

9. Opinions and First-Person Writing

Many posts are written in the first person as a record of how the authors reason at a point in time. Descriptions of our own choices are not suggestions that any reader do the same. Views may change as new evidence appears, and older posts may no longer reflect our current thinking.

10. Corrections and Updates

Minor corrections (typos, formatting, small clarifications) are made quietly.
Substantive corrections (a wrong number, formula, source or conclusion) are made in the post itself, with a visible note describing what changed and when.
Outdated content. Where a post has been overtaken by rule changes or new data, we may update it, add a dated note, or mark it as outdated.
To report an error, write to us at contact address with the post link, the issue, and a source if you have one. We aim to respond within two weeks.

11. Contributors

We welcome contributors who share our approach. Prospective contributors are reviewed before being included. All contributed work is edited to the same standards as the rest of the site, and contributors are expected to disclose relevant conflicts of interest. Contributors may write under a pen name, but we know who they are [confirm]. We may decline, edit or remove contributions that do not meet this policy. Contributors are not authorised to give investment advice on behalf of Investor Souk.

12. Comments and Reader Interaction

Comments are welcome, but views in them belong to the commenter and are not endorsed by Investor Souk. We may remove comments that are spam, abusive, defamatory, promotional, or that give specific buy/sell recommendations or solicit funds. Please do not share personal financial details, account information or passwords in comments or emails to us.

13. Privacy

How we handle personal information, including newsletter subscriptions, is described in our Privacy Policy.

14. Changes to This Policy

We may update this policy from time to time. The "Last updated" date above shows when it was last revised.

15. Contact

Questions, corrections or feedback about our editorial approach? Write to us at domain[DOT]coordinator[AT]gmail[DOT]com or use our Contact page.