71–80 of 134 posts
Ever since the infamous work of some of their alumni I have wondered what the culture of JS is actually like.
Original headline is "Jane Street suffers $15bn loss in July market ructions". HN guidelines do request use of original title and in this specific case the change of title is misleading by implying that situational awareness directly caused losses at JS. In the text it says "the US trading firm was wrongfooted during last month’s market ructions including the meltdown at AI-focused hedge fund Situational Awareness" s…
>by implying that situational awareness directly caused losses at JS. Correlation is not causation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they even have a Chicago office, so it's good you didn't relocate there. They're based in New York. https://www.janestreet.com/culture/our-offices/
Elsewhere on their website: "Jane Street has offices in some of the world’s most dynamic cities, including a presence in Amsterdam, Chicago , Hong Kong, London, New York and Singapore." https://www.janestreet.com/culture/benefits/?office=nyc&view... (scroll down)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://youtu.be/rE75WvOtcu8 This video from Patrick boyle has a lot of detail.
Always been a bit wary of Patrick. He reminds me of those people who in the 1990s/2000s would have become professional talking head guests on CNN. The older ex-academic/ex-industry guys who knew how to spin popular news stories into sound bites for the general public, while offering a veneer of authority. I'd rather get analysis from people who don't chase pop news stories for a living.
So you can blame him for that style lately, but its not all he can do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
“Be kind. Don’t be snarky.” is literally the first guideline in the “on comments” section.
If mine was over that line, so are a good 30% of HN comments. Seeing as those comments exist, I think your comment flagging criteria are what need to be adjusted here.
Frankly I think you're just annoyed because the reaction to your comment was not "oh wow this guy could work for Jane Street if he wanted but he doesn't because he doesn't want to move cities. Wow so cool"
[flagged]
They're still up $25B for the year, so it's hard to feel bad for them :-) On a more serious note, Jane Street has hired some very impressive technical talent. I'd work for them, myself, if I didn't have to relocate to Chicago.
They have $140B AUM.
So they are up ~18%.
https://observer.com/2024/11/jane-street-quantitative-tradin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>by implying that situational awareness directly caused losses at JS. Correlation is not causation.
Well, they did because JS owned a economics interest in SA, which led to the loss. So it was poor capital allocation, but really a systemic failure to delete leverage from the equation.
The real headline is buried in the article: > Jane Street has generated more than $40bn in net trading revenues in the year to Friday, even accounting for the July loss, which exceeds its entire haul for 2025, according to one of the people familiar with the matter. This would make JS one of the most profitable trading firms of all time even with the loss.
The real headline is buried in the article: > Jane Street has generated more than $40bn in net trading revenues in the year to Friday, even accounting for the July loss, which exceeds its entire haul for 2025, according to one of the people familiar with the matter. This would make JS one of the most profitable trading firms of all time even with the loss.
It's talking about revenue not profit
Basically profit from trading before they pay for salaries and office rent and all that jazz.