Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jim Simons has died

simonsfoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 338 posts

Re: Jim Simons has died

#311

Post by anonymouse008 »

jdonaldson wrote: post #175
qq66 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that he genuinely loved math. I don't think there's really anyone in his orbit who loves math as much. His family is his family and his colleagues love money. We'll see in the coming months and years whether he was able to create a structure that continues his legacy but usually the answer to that question is no.

It's hard watching venerable institutions rot into "just avoid administerial short term blame" death loops. You have to have skin in the game, not just hire a temporary manager for it.

subtweet @apple

Re: Jim Simons has died

#313

Post by TeaBrain »

mgfist wrote: post #284
TeaBrain wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their returns worked out to something like an average of 39% per year after fees, which is the figure I've heard cited. This may be what they were thinking of. Renaissance was/is known for having higher fees than likely the entirety of their competition, which they can get away with since their returns still outstrip the rest after the higher fees.

The fund is closed off to outsiders, so the fees are don't matter in the same way they do for most funds. In the podcast episode on Rentec done by Acquired, the hosts speculated that rentec kept the high fees as a way to ensure they have enough to handsomely pay less tenured employees who don't yet have much money in the fund.

I'd heard that the Medallion fund was closed off, so I wasn't really sure of the reasoning behind that continuing fee structure, but that line of speculation does make some sense.

Re: Jim Simons has died

#314

Post by 77pt77 »

77pt77 wrote: post #254
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it makes you feel better, my CV isn't even good enough to get a FAANG interview..

Really? Google harasses anyone with a live linkedin profile. Getting to an onsite interview is a different matter though. I know 3 people at google, all senior, either SE or people managers. None had brilliant academic records. One took almost 10 years to finish his sociology adjacent undergrad. He's the most "successful" and has been there for almost 15 years, 10 in the states. The others have been there for like 5.…

I forgot to say, none were technically amazing, just good, one not even that but not awfull either.

None had impressive intelligence either.

Re: Jim Simons has died

#315

Post by jeffhwang »

paulpauper wrote: post #206
nybsjytm wrote: post #82

Sometimes people act like guys like Bill Gates or Elon Musk are coming from deep personal scientific knowledge and accomplishment, but they're absolutely nothing compared to Simons. His contributions to geometry in the 60s and 70s, from minimal surfaces to Berger's classification of special holonomy to Chern-Simons theory, were fundamental and are still well-remembered. His name would be known even if he'd never gone…

Bill gates did math 55. legit smart guy

I was classmates with several people who did well in Math 55, and knew some people who were teaching fellows for it. Very smart folks but they themselves would not have compared themselves to Simons as mathematicians, esp. at age 18.

Re: Jim Simons has died

#316

Post by 77pt77 »

mehulashah wrote: post #15

This person made a lot of money, so it’s easy to say that he’s part of the machine. But, the man had principles. And he stood by them. Grateful for him showing us the way.

Not only that.

He was intellectual honest and technically exceptional.

Re: Jim Simons has died

#317

Post by 77pt77 »

MP_1729 wrote: post #128

Simmons is one of the greatest people and a true inspiration as a mathematician, even though my career drifted from academia. He and Andrew Wiles are the reason why I always say I am a mathematician, even though I work elsewhere. RIP

Why do you admire Wiles so much?

Re: Jim Simons has died

#318

Post by eru »

chronic640201 wrote: post #299
eru wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The returns of modern HFT market makers are even higher. The returns of a child's lemonade stand are even higher... Market makers and lemonade stands are mostly about paying for labour (and ideas etc, but let's call that 'labour', too). Capital requirements are rather low. So taking all the profit and attributing it to capital returns tends to give you weird numbers.

> So taking all the profit and attributing it to capital returns tends to give you weird numbers. Why does it matter? Returns are returns. Money in, money out. After all, people compare HYSA bank interest with TreasuryDirect bond returns with equity ETFs like VTI and QQQ. Each with vastly different capital mechanics.

Yes, but there any old schmuck can put some dollars in and get the same return.

Good luck trying that with one of those very profitable market makers and funds: they don't want your capital; or at least they don't want it at the same price (= returns) that we are quoting here. Which suggests that those returns aren't attributable to that capital at all (even though for tax reasons they might structured it so that legally these are counted as capital returns, but that just obscures the underlying economic reality).

This is very similar to observing that a particular company pays a lot of money for some very simple job; but then we notice that the job is only available for the son of the CEO. We can conclude that the extra pay isn't really for that simple job.

Or when we notice that a government contractor officially charges 5000 dollars for a hammer. Unless you and me could rock up and steal market share by offering to sell hammers for 4000 dollars, it's very likely that the 5000 dollars aren't really for the hammer at all; but just some accounting shenanigans.

Re: Jim Simons has died

#319

Post by eru »

NhanH wrote: post #301
eru wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on how you look at it. Eg selling insurance can be seen as a zero sum game, but it's a genuinely useful product for people, even when the expected value for them is negative. It works, because utility is not strictly proportional to money. Similarly, market making delivers liquidity-on-demand for a fee.

Insurance is positive-sum because the value-generating enterprise (the buyer) gets to continue generating value after the unexpected thing happen. The alternatives is that the value creation process just stop. It is only seemingly zero-sum for the point in time when the accident happens and one side has to pay for the other.

Your argument only works for catastrophic insurance.

In practice, people take out insurance even for events that would not put them out of business.

Btw, if you are talking about 'value-generating enterprises', ie businesses as buyers of insurance, then your argument doesn't really work either, or at least not without caveats:

When a business suddenly has a large liability, and it goes bankrupt, all that happens is that the equity owners are wiped out and the creditors take over. The underlying business can and often does continue uninterrupted, and has approximately the same value as a going concern as before.

Also, being able to run as a going concern is of finite value to a business. If your business can take a 51% chance of either doubling in value or alternatively going bust, then that _might_ be a good gamble to take if your shareholders are well-diversified. For example, if index funds are your main shareholders.

Humans need considerable better odds before they consider such a gamble. But people do regularly put their life on the line in return for very finite benefits. Eg every time you leave the house, and drive a car. Or even more stark, any time people conveniently 'forget' to put their seatbelts on.

Re: Jim Simons has died

#320

Post by mgfist »

bcherny wrote: post #288
mgfist wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's tough because of how little material is out there. I will say, I thought their hypothesis on why the fees are so high was very astute. Can't know if it's true or not, but it feels very compelling.

The wealth transfer hypothesis I didn’t really get, but their other hypothesis that it’s a way to nudge non-employees out of the fund is probably right.

I think "wealth transfer" is a poor description. Really it's just a way to ensure they have enough money to compensate (very highly) less tenured employees, and to align incentives better (i.e. not just being paid because you're already rich and tenured).
Post reply on HN