The recipient of a quarterly letter is already an existing shareholder, therefore there is little need to try and sell the letter’s contents to them. They are looking for logic to support the use of their money for that quarter, and a description of the process that was communicated to them. They want to see that the process was actually executed as communicated.
This makes this more of a case of ghostwriting than copywriting. As a ghostwriter, your job is to channel your fund manager as they would be on a candid day, using the attribution data you give rather than making a story from the return effectively backwards.
The hard part is explaining a detractor without either justifying it or apologizing for it. Holders can tell the difference immediately. A letter that describes how a position was sized, the assumptions that were made in the investment thesis, and which assumption broke is an educational letter for the reader. One that simply lists contributors assumes that everything else will be dismissed by readers.
Generated letters are identical in structure quarter after quarter, and reflexively optimistic. A holder reading two in sequence will notice the same structure, the same three-part rhythm, and that the position down forty percent is never referred to. That structure reads as evasive and is worse than an unproductive quarter.
The writer reads the last four letters before touching this one, so the voice carries, and holders do not meet a new author every quarter. Attribution, positioning, and exposure figures come from your systems untouched. The writer then asks what has driven the change in the manager’s thinking and records that instead of embellishing the figures with adjectives.
We go through the text line by line to ensure no position is praised with prose if they lost money in the data. Sentences with a forward view have been highlighted and will not be published until they are reviewed. Nothing we write should be considered an investment recommendation, and we prepare all letter reviews for your compliance officer to review prior to a single holder seeing the letter.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical investment commentary | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly commentary | 500 | $50 | $0.50 | $50.50 |
| Quarterly letter | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Annual letter | 2,500 | $250 | $2.50 | $252.50 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Anything from 100 words up. Because you pay by the word you are never buying padding to fill a package tier.
Yes. Tell us the volume and cadence and we keep the same writer on the account so the voice stays consistent. The rate does not change with volume.
Half an hour of talking is usually enough, and is the difference between a letter that sounds like your manager and one that sounds like a fund. Where a phone call is not possible, voice notes or investment committee minutes are nearly as good.
This is primarily the reason for this format. We state the loss concisely. We also state which assumption failed. We avoid phrasing that leads to a long drawn-out explanation of something that is simply a drawdown. We will be waiting for your compliance team for final approval on the wording.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Most finance writers take the metaphorical pizza slice route. Our piece explained the math slowly and correctly, using the actual numbers we charge. Compliance signed it off, and they made zero changes. That has not happened in the three years during which I have done this job.
Explaining compound interest to those who left school at sixteen is difficult and this mainly tackles the issue. I requested and was given one worked example with real numbers. I wanted three, so I made two adjustments. Your definition of APR is the most comprehensible I have come across in any context.
Public-sector tender, forty pages, scored on the method statement. The writer read the scoring matrix and tailored the answer in that order rather than telling our story. We scored highest on quality for the first time. I don’t know if it’s repeatable but I’ll definitely be applying again for the next tender.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees