Live data from Hacker News

Investors in Situational Awareness deserved to lose their shirts

economist.com

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Investors in Situational Awareness deserved to lose their shirts

#51
> The mystery is what on earth his investors were thinking. Perhaps they weren’t. In which case, that would be more worrying than anything about Situational Awareness’s humbling.

I think this piece is pointing out two things:

That this bubble still has a long way to deflate if it is indeed deflating. The numbers involved truly are spectacular and unwinding could be catastrophic.

That there is a lot of blind faith in the market in unsubstantiated predictions - like AGI this decade (or indeed AGI at all based on LLMs), and a lot of follower behaviour among investors chasing the latest trade.

Re: Investors in Situational Awareness deserved to lose their shirts

#52

> Good for Mr Aschenbrenner for chancing his arm. The mystery is what on earth his investors were thinking. Perhaps they weren’t. In which case, that would be more worrying than anything about Situational Awareness’s humbling. The Economist should change its name to The Populist with this type of screed. Here's the reality: 1. Lots of money is invested willy-nilly for all sorts of reasons (or no reason at all) in all…

> this failure wasn't all that special >> people who will lose money investing in this fund are the type of people who have a full wardrobe If Citadel hadn't bailed him out, Situational Awareness very likely could have triggered a cascade of fire sales. That would not only hurt ordinary investors' positions, it could have also triggered a credit or even banking crisis (depending on how the margin loans are held). A b…

> If Citadel hadn't bailed him out, Situational Awareness very likely could have triggered a cascade of fire sales.

Citadel didn't bail him out/rescue him. This was a distressed purchase, made at auction. Citadel believes it will eventually make money on the book, which was only around $16 billion.

If Citadel and Millennium (the other bidder) hadn't stepped in, the prime brokers would have liquidated the collateral themselves. The collateral here was mostly liquid mega-cap semi stocks. Probably the best and easiest collateral to deal with. And the exposure was split across three of the most highly capitalized banks (BofA, Goldman and JPMorgan) and they were already managing the wind-down when Citadel stepped in opportunistically.

If AI is going to take down the market, it isn't this. It's all the private credit exposure that isn't getting marked to market daily.

Re: Investors in Situational Awareness deserved to lose their shirts

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the central finding in EA is donating money while earning good is better than donating time directly for charity. To me it seems correct but controversial for many people(likely because you are maximizing your personal income)

> the central finding in EA is donating money while earning good is better than donating time directly for charity EA has many tenets, some of make sense per se , but collectively–particulalry when taking into account that EA isn't just an idea but a movement of people with a distinct culture and track record–probably do more harm than good.

What doesn't make sense? I thought expected wealth optimization was the most controversial thing by far.

Re: Investors in Situational Awareness deserved to lose their shirts

#56
post #3

Read the bio. Found it (emphasis mine): > While at Columbia, he co-founded the university's effective altruism (EA) chapter.[5] Just another smart, yet ethically challenged, individual. Nothing to see here.

How is he ethically challenged? This looks like an accusation that doesn't have merit

[deleted]

Re: Investors in Situational Awareness deserved to lose their shirts

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this failure wasn't all that special >> people who will lose money investing in this fund are the type of people who have a full wardrobe If Citadel hadn't bailed him out, Situational Awareness very likely could have triggered a cascade of fire sales. That would not only hurt ordinary investors' positions, it could have also triggered a credit or even banking crisis (depending on how the margin loans are held). A b…

> If Citadel hadn't bailed him out, Situational Awareness very likely could have triggered a cascade of fire sales. Citadel didn't bail him out/rescue him. This was a distressed purchase, made at auction. Citadel believes it will eventually make money on the book, which was only around $16 billion. If Citadel and Millennium (the other bidder) hadn't stepped in, the prime brokers would have liquidated the collateral t…

> Citadel didn't bail him out/rescue him. This was a distressed purchase, made at auction. Citadel believes it will eventually make money on the book, which was only around $16 billion

...you're describing a bail-out. The LTCM lenders and Fed in the financial crisis made money on their books. They were still extending liquidity.

> the prime brokers would have liquidated the collateral themselves. The collateral here was mostly liquid mega-cap semi stocks

Yes. By fire selling. Which triggers, in turn, further margin calls and potential failures.

I'm not saying it's a certainty. But claiming there is limited financial risk from any $10+ billion leveraged meltdown is absurd.

> If AI is going to take down the market, it isn't this. It's all the private credit exposure that isn't getting marked to market daily

Private markets move slowly. That gives time to mop up messes. Crises metastasize when they hit public instruments precisely because that's where the most volume, leverage and potential for panic live.

Re: Investors in Situational Awareness deserved to lose their shirts

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the central finding in EA is donating money while earning good is better than donating time directly for charity EA has many tenets, some of make sense per se , but collectively–particulalry when taking into account that EA isn't just an idea but a movement of people with a distinct culture and track record–probably do more harm than good.

What doesn't make sense? I thought expected wealth optimization was the most controversial thing by far.

> What doesn't make sense?

Well, for one, the frequency of its members committing mass fraud.

Like, if a church preaches kindness and love but its preachers and members are constantly out there murdering people, it's a bit silly to point to the text alone when evaluating the organisation.

Re: Investors in Situational Awareness deserved to lose their shirts

#59
post #5

> He reported returns of 439% for the first half of 2026 > which posted a loss of 67% in July So it's still up 44% this year? The article notes this, but seems unnecessarily adversarial against an investor who is still wildly successful.

The same goes for all reporting on YouTube. Many publishers jumpers the gun without looking at context. It's also interesting that Citadel is mentioned everywhere as the buyer, as if it's strange that a huge market maker firm would be involved in a large forced sale. Seems the fund also has Anthropic shares, so it's not like their entire portfolio got margin called.

"Citadel" is a name that makes headlines, for better or worse. Ken Griffin hasn't exactly lived his life in such a way as to avoid the limelight. But you're right, this is just the sort of thing that Citadel and similar firms do once in a while, when the opportunity arises.

(Spicier claim: When Citadel bailed out Melvin at the hype of the GME craze, that was also just business as usual, not a conspiracy as the redditors believed.)

Another way to parse it when they put "Citadel" in their headlines, is that they're trying to communicate to knowledgeable investors that there's no need to panic. The book is in experienced hands now, with enough capitalization to weather any further attacks, and the contagion probably won't spread.

Re: Investors in Situational Awareness deserved to lose their shirts

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Citadel hadn't bailed him out, Situational Awareness very likely could have triggered a cascade of fire sales. Citadel didn't bail him out/rescue him. This was a distressed purchase, made at auction. Citadel believes it will eventually make money on the book, which was only around $16 billion. If Citadel and Millennium (the other bidder) hadn't stepped in, the prime brokers would have liquidated the collateral t…

> Citadel didn't bail him out/rescue him. This was a distressed purchase, made at auction. Citadel believes it will eventually make money on the book, which was only around $16 billion ...you're describing a bail-out. The LTCM lenders and Fed in the financial crisis made money on their books. They were still extending liquidity. > the prime brokers would have liquidated the collateral themselves. The collateral here…

> ...you're describing a bail-out. The LTCM lenders and Fed in the financial crisis made money on their books. They were still extending liquidity.

Sorry, but this is just not accurate.

LTCM was a coordinated recapitalization. The New York Fed brought together 14 institutions who put over $3.5 billion of their own capital into the fund in exchange for about 90% of the fund's equity, and then they wound the book down slowly over the following year.

Here, Citadel, without any regulator involvement, made an arm's-length purchase of Situational Awareness' assets at a discount in a competitive auction. It put no money into the fund.

Also, you need to look at what LTCM was versus what Situational Awareness is: LTCM was invested in fixed-income securities with highly-illiquid derivatives exceeding $1 trillion. Its leverage was 25x.

Situational Awareness was a long/short equity fund with 4x leverage in daily-marked, over-collateralized margin accounts, held against liquid large-cap semis, with three well-capitalized prime brokers who saw the failure coming and were prepared to manage the collateral.

> I'm not saying it's a certainty. But claiming there is limited financial risk from any $10+ billion leveraged meltdown is absurd.

You're failing to make a distinction between this fund melting down and the correlated risk. Situational Awareness made leveraged bets in highly crowded trades. While forced selling into an already-falling market can be problematic, it's a second order effect. A symptom, not the cause.

> Private markets move slowly. That gives time to mop up messes. Crises metastasize when they hit public instruments precisely because that's where the most volume, leverage and potential for panic live.

That's not how it works. Slow marks to market don't give you time to mop up messes. They are what allow institutions to keep lending against untested valuations.

And you have it backwards on volume. Volume isn't what makes crises metastasize. It's what lets them resolve. Bad public investments can be cleared in a block trade while private ones have no exit that doesn't set a mark for everyone still holding. This is why 2008 started in mortgage credit that was being carried at model prices. It didn't start in public equities.

If you look at the history of deleveragings, the ones that stay contained are the public ones.

Post reply on HN