I'm not sure what's going on with this comment so let me make three observations: The speed (latency) of the EM spectrum is the effective celerity of the medium: this doesn't differ in the air between microwave and shortwave in any meaningful way. The speed (throughput) achievable on a given frequency is limited by the period of that frequence, high wavelengths can modulate more signal. Microwaves are higher frequenc…
Shortwave radio can be transmitted around the curve of Earth by ionospheric reflection and refraction so fewer repeaters are needed. This allows crossing vast oceans where microwave infrastructure might not be possible. As you say the downside is available bandwidth and throughput.
Not to mention that tightening spreads, deepening books, and equalizing prices across regulatory/financial/geographical regimes is a pretty serious social good in its own right. I understand that (as the article mentions) these folks clean up when the wheels have already come off anyways, but day-in-day-out, the spread on AAPL is one tick ($0.01) nowadays, rather than the 1/8ths that you'd get quoted by some loud guy…
If you're going to hold AAPL longer than a quarter, then the tick vs. 1/8 doesn't matter, and if you're not, your trade doesn't need to happen to support the core goal of financial markets which is to finance companies.
But what if you hold a mutual fund that bulls and sells AAPL regularly as part of managing inflows and outflows?
I'm not sure what's going on with this comment so let me make three observations: The speed (latency) of the EM spectrum is the effective celerity of the medium: this doesn't differ in the air between microwave and shortwave in any meaningful way. The speed (throughput) achievable on a given frequency is limited by the period of that frequence, high wavelengths can modulate more signal. Microwaves are higher frequenc…
Neutrinos don’t need to go around the earth, so in theory you have a pi/2 advantage over an EM signal when sending to an antipodal location, for instance. In practice of course, throughput is utterly horrible for the reason you indicate.
All you need is a couple bits, but yeah, making sure it’s the neutrino your buddy sent and not some other one is where it gets complicated.
Generally good article that delves into how a market maker functions. Couple points: Re EA: quoting my boss, EA isn't really a dominant thing in the market maker space, it's pretty much only espoused by a couple high profile individuals (mainly, SBF). Re strategy: point about how there's little strategy involved in being a market maker is off-base. Everything is ultimately strategy: do I continue to pour resources in…
> EA isn't really a dominant thing in the market maker space
The article doesn't say it's dominant, it says "There is a weirdly high overlap between quant finance and Effective Altruism in general, and between Jane Street and EA in particular (it is emphatically not 100%)"
I know quite a few EAs who work or worked at Jane Street, much lower profile than SBF. What the article misses is that a lot of EAs specifically went into finance because if you're looking to earn money to donate it's one of the places you can earn the most, and not because of "where they advertise jobs" or "overlap in outlooks".
I'm struggling to understand how OCaml reduces the risk of bad hires and other languages don't.
Languages large swaths of the industry know (Java, C#, JS, Python, etc) include a subset of people who learned it purely for the job opportunities but aren't competent developers. The number of people who learn more niche languages like an ML or Haskell has a far lower % of people of that type. An example of a language that I could see shifting from one to the other pretty soon is Rust now that it could be a way in t…
I agree with this to some extent. However in case of firms like Jane or Citadel or Quadrature you have to have a well documented, long track record of accomplishments in various orgs before your CV lands on their desks.
These companies hire from a different pool than you described.
Neutrinos don’t need to go around the earth, so in theory you have a pi/2 advantage over an EM signal when sending to an antipodal location, for instance. In practice of course, throughput is utterly horrible for the reason you indicate.
All you need is a couple bits, but yeah, making sure it’s the neutrino your buddy sent and not some other one is where it gets complicated.
I think neutrino detectors capture at best something like 10 neutrinos per year or so, so the throughput would be severely limited.
There's one thing that always baffles me about this kind of market work. Let's for the sake of argument assume that HFT and other sophisticated market making activities are crucial for price discovery and other great social benefits. Then why does this amazingly important social good get mostly turned off over 80% of the time[1]? Even as a retail buy-and-hold investor in boring ETFs not being able to trade outside no…
Legacy reasons.
You can trade outside of market hours just fine and many products (e.g. E-mini S&P 500) trade all night. It's just that a lot of companies publish news right after the market closes so prices are more volatile. And people sleep or play videogames at night so there's less liquidity.
That sounds as if you can jump into a field without spending 10-20 years of learning and do cutting-edge research. I'm not sure whether someone who has done quant finance can make meaningful contributions to the actual science. So if your role ends up spending money and doing top-level management, why not just fund companies that do and stay in finance? [edit] To add one prominent example - it's doable, as Jeff Hawki…
You’re overestimating the technical skills needed to do cancer research: there’s a reason why many wet labs allow high school students to come and help with research. It’s mostly grunt work and whatever technical skills can be learned by a high school student over a summer. I would venture to say the average Jane street worker has done more good for society than the average cancer researcher or Alzheimer’s researcher…
I do cancer research. You're right, the technical skills for basic wet lab stuff are not hard to learn. The hard part of cancer research is not learning how to pipette, it's learning how to ask and investigate worthwhile questions. Experimental design is subtle and requires wide ranging knowledge of sources of biological and technical confounders. Growing cells might be easy, but do you know how to debug a fluorescence microscopy experiment; in fact, do you even know how to recognize that it needs to be debugged? This is stuff you can learn over the course of a few years in a phd program, but it takes longer to become a true expert. Finally, what do you investigate? Cancer? What tissue type, which cell type, which proteins, DNA structures, or RNA structures are most important and least understood? Just absorbing a small fraction of the literature so that you don't ask stupid or boring questions is a lifelong task.
>the winners get a job from which people routinely retire rich in their 30s, and the losers... don't Honestly, I find this ridiculous. Firstly, Yes, working at Jane Street is a well paying job and you'll do well out of it. No. People aren't routinely retiring in their 30s. I don't understand where this absurd idea comes from. Look at all the rich people in the world, look at how old they are, and ask, are they retire…
I think the author meant "could retire very comfortably in their 30s", and you're correct to point out that's not what it literally says. But as for "could"? Shit you can do that at Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta if you're in that league and start out of undergrad. In my experience (more than a few of my FAANG-era colleagues either came from or went to high-technology finance), people don't actually leave Google to…
> But as for "could"? Shit you can do that at Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta
Yes, these are some of the highest paying companies on the planet. Your statement is not a put-down of Jane Street.
> to make money over retail trades You can call them vampire squid from hell but they don't exactly take money from retail, they tighten spreads for them if anything.
Wouldn't electronic front running take money from regular folks? Perhaps not from retail trades, but from mutual/index funds, pension funds, etc.
Front running is illegal. However, making a better price prediction than the rest of the market and trading on it is not the same thing as front running.