Live data from Hacker News

Quant Hedge Fund D.E. Shaw Fires 150; 10% of staff

dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: Quant Hedge Fund D.E. Shaw Fires 150; 10% of staff

#31
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about that ... DE Shaw & Company takes its very smartest people (and a non-trivial portion of their profits) and puts them to work at DE Shaw Research, where they work on protein folding and other computational biology that could help cure cancer and HIV. I think that's a pretty worthwhile use of talent :-D From what I was told, David Shaw is spending most of his time on the research group these days. Th…

The problem is that DE Shaw Research made a loosing bet recently when they decided to design custom silicon to solve the protein folding problem while everyone else kept using commodity hardware and worked on improving the software.

How do you know that this is a losing bet? It's still pretty early days. And aren't they hedged with their work on Desmond, which is MD software for commodity clusters?

Re: Quant Hedge Fund D.E. Shaw Fires 150; 10% of staff

#32
post #28

I assume their business model is roughly : to implement algorithms that find near-arbitrage opportunities by sifting through vast amounts of market data, then use those to multiply investment funds. This sounds like the perfect domain for a startup.. where a nimble small team of quant/developers would have huge advantages, by being faster to rollout. This is almost a pure software business, so why aren't these compan…

Two major difference of a trading firm from a software firm: 1) Large amount of trading capital is needed to make a sizable profit. 2) Math, finance and trading skills.

A trading firm needs above 2 items in addition to technical skills to succeed. A team of good people with all 3 above items (capital, trading, tech) have a good chance to succeed.

In fact, Citadel (one of the largest quant hedge funds) was started by one person (Ken Griffin) when he was a undergraduate from a Harvard dormitory. It is pretty much a startup success story.

There is a major culture difference: trading is the key activity; coding is only secondary. This may explain why trading firms usually have a typical wall-street tough culture, and don't feel like a typical silicon-valley startup.

Re: Quant Hedge Fund D.E. Shaw Fires 150; 10% of staff

#33
post #30
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why aren't these companies more like startups? There are. http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/28/high-frequency-trading-pers... Incidentally Jane Street isn't a hedge fund, it's a proprietary trading firm.

Nice link.. seems like HTG have taken the first step towards a pluggable infrastructure, where the plugin is the quant/programmer + their algorithm implementation. ps. I never really understood the difference - Hedge Funds seem to be more about speculating via leverage than 'hedging'? [using their own proprietary algorithms to do that]

This video explains a bit more about what they do: http://ocaml.janestreet.com/?q=node/61

Re: Quant Hedge Fund D.E. Shaw Fires 150; 10% of staff

#34
post #32
post #28

I assume their business model is roughly : to implement algorithms that find near-arbitrage opportunities by sifting through vast amounts of market data, then use those to multiply investment funds. This sounds like the perfect domain for a startup.. where a nimble small team of quant/developers would have huge advantages, by being faster to rollout. This is almost a pure software business, so why aren't these compan…

Two major difference of a trading firm from a software firm: 1) Large amount of trading capital is needed to make a sizable profit. 2) Math, finance and trading skills. A trading firm needs above 2 items in addition to technical skills to succeed. A team of good people with all 3 above items (capital, trading, tech) have a good chance to succeed. In fact, Citadel (one of the largest quant hedge funds) was started by…

Not so different as you might think. After all, a large amount of capital is needed to build out a datacentre. Doesn't mean that Google is the only company that can make a profit on the Internet.

Re: Quant Hedge Fund D.E. Shaw Fires 150; 10% of staff

#35
post #34
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two major difference of a trading firm from a software firm: 1) Large amount of trading capital is needed to make a sizable profit. 2) Math, finance and trading skills. A trading firm needs above 2 items in addition to technical skills to succeed. A team of good people with all 3 above items (capital, trading, tech) have a good chance to succeed. In fact, Citadel (one of the largest quant hedge funds) was started by…

Not so different as you might think. After all, a large amount of capital is needed to build out a datacentre. Doesn't mean that Google is the only company that can make a profit on the Internet.

Not really on the same scale. If you're a hedge fund, the most you can make in a year is some small percentage of your total assets under management, so you need to persuade people to give you billions (at least hundreds of millions) before you can start raking in the kind of dough that pays salaries.

Re: Quant Hedge Fund D.E. Shaw Fires 150; 10% of staff

#36
post #35
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so different as you might think. After all, a large amount of capital is needed to build out a datacentre. Doesn't mean that Google is the only company that can make a profit on the Internet.

Not really on the same scale. If you're a hedge fund, the most you can make in a year is some small percentage of your total assets under management, so you need to persuade people to give you billions (at least hundreds of millions) before you can start raking in the kind of dough that pays salaries.

That's what leverage is for (and if it goes wrong you end up like LTCM).

Re: Quant Hedge Fund D.E. Shaw Fires 150; 10% of staff

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that DE Shaw Research made a loosing bet recently when they decided to design custom silicon to solve the protein folding problem while everyone else kept using commodity hardware and worked on improving the software.

How do you know that this is a losing bet? It's still pretty early days. And aren't they hedged with their work on Desmond, which is MD software for commodity clusters?

Custom hardware for chemical physics has been tried multiple times before since the late 70s. I’ve heard most companies only found financial success through bloated government contracts and the custom hardware only provided limited advantages for researchers. In all cases these advantages died out quickly with advances in commodity hardware.

Anton is impressive in that it can provide millisecond long trajectories of protein/solvent systems, but single trajectories are of limited utility. You need many (1000s) of such trajectories for statistical analysis of the molecular system. Further, there already exist several clever methods that leverage chemical statistical mechanics to provide the same analysis without the need for single long trajectories. As an example, see Pande’s work developing Markov models of protein folding using millions of short trajectories between metastable states. This method has already provided a complete statistical analysis of protein folding for proteins that fold on times scales an order of magnitude beyond what Anton can simulate.

As for Desmond, there already exists a plethora of free MD programs (MMTK, LAMMPS, NAMD, CHARMM, Gromacs, and many more). Many of these, especially Gromacs, have already been highly optimized for a range of hardware and I wouldn’t expect Desmond to surpass these free codes by a margin worth dropping dollars.

Personally, I still have high hopes for DE Shaw Research, I just don’t see how their current offerings will turn a significant profit or greatly advance science. I’d love to be proven wrong, and I’m sure they’ll have plenty of additional novel future projects, some of which could be paradigm-shift-changing for chemical physics and molecular biology. My guess is that such advances won’t come from their hardware geniuses, but instead from their math/physics geniuses that will develop new statistical mechanics methods to bend & contract in silico time.

Re: Quant Hedge Fund D.E. Shaw Fires 150; 10% of staff

#38
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about that ... DE Shaw & Company takes its very smartest people (and a non-trivial portion of their profits) and puts them to work at DE Shaw Research, where they work on protein folding and other computational biology that could help cure cancer and HIV. I think that's a pretty worthwhile use of talent :-D From what I was told, David Shaw is spending most of his time on the research group these days. Th…

The problem is that DE Shaw Research made a loosing bet recently when they decided to design custom silicon to solve the protein folding problem while everyone else kept using commodity hardware and worked on improving the software.

I saw a guy I know at a wedding a few weeks ago who works at Shaw Research, and I asked him about this. He didn't give explicit details on custom vs. commodity performance, but he did say they had machines up and running and giving novel results.

I doubt it is fair to say they are ignoring software improvements. I saw Shaw talk about the machine architecture and he had a lot to say about balancing programmability for later software improvements vs. specialized computational resources. Also, it was his algorithmic improvements, the "neutral territory" methods, that were inspiration for the machine. Are NT methods still state of the art for molecular simulation?

Re: Quant Hedge Fund D.E. Shaw Fires 150; 10% of staff

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what companies like GE and Intel do. I personally think it's terrible management practice, but it seems to work for them, and there's always fresh young blood coming in at the bottom.

The downvote seems to indicate a citation is necessary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch#Tenure_as_CEO_of_GE http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/updated-rumors-intel-layo... (The Intel practice was also confirmed in Andy Grove's book "Only the paranoid survive".)

Did you read the second article?

> Intel announced it will reduce its workforce by 4,000 workers (5%), mostly through attrition or voluntary separation programs.

I joined Intel shortly after that article was written (2002). For much of my tenure (3 years), Intel had a US hiring freeze (except through acquisition, how I got hired) and aimed to reduce its headcount primary through attrition, not layoffs. I felt like Intel treated its employees pretty well.

Re: Quant Hedge Fund D.E. Shaw Fires 150; 10% of staff

#40
One thing I always found odd about DE Shaw is how casual the work environment is. It's like google, but in Manhattan. The problem is NY isn't california and quant finance isn't all software. There's a certain pace and overt competitiveness to Manhattan that enforces a discipline and a work ethic onto people. This works quite well in the Darwinian world of finance. But, from what I saw of various parts of DE Shaw's operations there was somewhat a lack of urgency to some fairly critical areas. A good firing spree every once in a while seems to work wonders in putting the urgency back into the workforce.
Post reply on HN