Leopold Aschenbrenner: The Investor Letter After the Crash

"I take full responsibility for these events."

With that sentence, Leopold Aschenbrenner explained to his investors a July in which his fund lost 67 percent and had to sell the bulk of its listed portfolio to Citadel. Aschenbrenner is a former OpenAI researcher. The fund he built on his own AI thesis, Situational Awareness, became one of the biggest new names on Wall Street in less than two years. Then came three weeks in July.

The letter explaining it went out to investors on a Thursday. Hours later it was in the Wall Street Journal.

That is exactly what makes it an object lesson.

The letter reads as if its author had priced in publication. There is no line that only makes sense for a single investor, and none that looks bad in print.

That is the exception. Client letters, employee memos, shareholder updates: most companies write them as if the distribution list were the audience. But once a letter has more than a handful of recipients, the list is only the first reader. The second sits in a newsroom, the third in opposing counsel's office.

The question to ask before anything goes out is therefore not whether the text convinces its recipients. It is: who else will read this, and does the text hold up?

The letter went out while the story was still forming, not after the final numbers. Anyone writing about the case already had his account on their desk. Nobody had to fill a gap.

This is the decision that gets made wrong most often in a crisis. The temptation to wait for complete numbers is understandable and expensive. Silence is not read as diligence; it gets filled — by others. Whoever speaks first sets the vocabulary in which the case is negotiated.

One passage of the letter lists everything that did not happen: not shut down, not liquidated, not converted into a purely private fund. What was being said appears nowhere.

That is precise craft. Naming a rumor in order to deny it gives it a second life, this time with an official source. The alternative is exactly what this letter does: state the accurate facts in a way that answers the false claim without ever quoting it.

The rest is unglamorous and rare. The admission comes at the start, not after the framing. The numbers are in the letter itself, not in a reference to the next reporting cycle. And instead of a blanket statement, there is an offer of one-on-one conversations.

Most crisis letters do it the other way around: context first, then relativization, then an admission in the subjunctive, numbers later. That reads better in the week it goes out. It just doesn't hold up when someone lays the letter next to the facts three months later.

How the fund fares from here, nobody knows. For judging the letter, that is beside the point. Most crisis letters are written to survive the week. This one was written to be read afterwards.

That is the standard every crisis letter has to meet: not whether it reassures, but whether it withstands later reading.

---

Laura Montag advises companies and executives in crises, proceedings, and special situations. View services