Live data from Hacker News

Understanding Jane Street

thediff.co

371–380 of 392 posts

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> as if you can jump into a field without spending 10-20 years of learning and do cutting-edge research. I know multiple people who have done this. If you want a famous person, look at Paul Erdős. Always jumping into new areas of mathematics and solving problems at the cutting edge. Or, to get to the current subject, Taleb using his background as a trader to jump to a career in academia, where many consider(ed) his r…

I'm not away of Erdos being at the cutting edge. There are far better examples of people moving between fields and doing very high-level stuff. For example, David Mumford, who has a great blog by the way.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly would this fraud work? Most HFT firms only trade their own capital and distribute gains internally, there’s no one to defraud. Also it’s been going on a lot longer than a decade.

Market coercion, regulatory capture, negligence, or any other plain old market manipulation like pump and dump or insider trading or bear raiding, etc. Enron straight up lied to regulators, many of their employees were also plain negligent. HFTs will probably find their own flavor of fraud given a few more years, if they haven't already.

> HFTs will probably find their own flavor of fraud given a few more years, if they haven't already.

This is what psychics call a "cold reading" - a statement that is bound to be true eventually! At some point in the future HFTs will "find" (?) something approximating fraud. That almost can't not be true. But I don't see how it relates to your statement that Jane Street's reported profits are fraudulent.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#373
post #311
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, if you end up in a job that pays this well it’s because you’re either very lucky (and congrats to you) or you’re very passionate. If you’re in the latter category why would you retire when you’re being paid to do what you love?

> it’s because you’re either very lucky (and congrats to you) or you’re very passionate. It's never because you're very passionate. Passion has basically no correlation with financial success. Millions of passionate artists, musicians, writers, and all of them broke as can be, most working shit jobs to pay the bills wishing they could just be passionate and make money from that. Passion is bullshit. The real path to…

> Passion has basically no correlation with financial success.

Have you got any evidence for this? I would expect that passion correlates with hard work, and hard work seems to be necessary for success. I agree that many artists are passionate, but surely people can also be passionate about doing things like writing software or other activities that are valued highly in the market.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory having fewer repeaters improves latency, probably in the range of 100ns per repeater. I don't know how much of a practical effect that has, likely very minimal with modern implementations. Either way it's more sensible to build high throughput microwave networks given the tiny amount of shortwave bandwidth we have.

I bet it's way lower than 100ms for this application. Single digits. Maybe less.

I wrote 100ns, and meant an analog repeater. Full digital regeneration is probably in the 1-10μs range.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Latency would also be degraded by the interaction property. The probability that you detect the first packet of neutrinos is extremely low.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#376
I first heard about Jane Street taking the first computational linguistics course that used OCaml. I followed them over the next decade, every couple years seeing them pop up.

The given reasons for using Ocaml outlined in this article is interesting. It makes reasoning about complex systems easier. And making an "esoteric choice" earlier has advantages in hiring.

Assuming you give back to keep it going.

I don't have the advantage of secrecy where I'm at. But I'd be willing to guess that strategy could apply to other languages and markets.

Have fun first movers.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#377
post #373
post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s because you’re either very lucky (and congrats to you) or you’re very passionate. It's never because you're very passionate. Passion has basically no correlation with financial success. Millions of passionate artists, musicians, writers, and all of them broke as can be, most working shit jobs to pay the bills wishing they could just be passionate and make money from that. Passion is bullshit. The real path to…

> Passion has basically no correlation with financial success. Have you got any evidence for this? I would expect that passion correlates with hard work, and hard work seems to be necessary for success. I agree that many artists are passionate, but surely people can also be passionate about doing things like writing software or other activities that are valued highly in the market.

Do you have any evidence that it does?

We live in a culture that wishes passion lead to success. It's what we're taught as children here. It's what we want to be true.

And yet I find no strong evidence anywhere supporting the assertion that it does; just people claiming that it's up to those who doubt to disprove it.

Passion is a fairy tale adults tell each other because it's nicer than the reality that dumb luck and being born wealthy are the only real chances we have.

And those who were lucky or born on third base love to tell everyone it was because they were just so darned passionate.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#378
post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they haven't proven legitimacy and societal benefit, assuming fraud is a pretty safe bet. This is absurd reasoning. It's like saying Apple has such large profit margins on their iPhones that they must be either cooking their books or in cahoots with someone somewhere. It's just a phone! How hard is it for a competitor to make a comparable phone?! They've had 15 years to copy them! > I honestly can't name any inv…

As mentioned earlier: phones and financial services are not similar. The market for consumer electronics hasn't fundamentally threatened the stability of the US government every decade for the past 5 decades. I can pick up an iPhone and use its features. It's clearly a complicated device with years of widely publicized, widely understood iterations. Renaissance Technologies Medallion fund may as well be an insider tr…

It's hard to continue this conversation in good faith without pointing out that you literally have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know what HFT firms or what market making actually is, yet you don't mind throwing out outrageous accusations of fraud and illegal activities with zero evidence to back it up.

Your entire argument is "I don't know what they do, and they make money in finance, so they must be doing it illegally." The burden is on you to provide evidence to back up your claim. That's how things work. I could claim that HN user rgifford is the Zodiac Killer, and my evidence is "I don't know him but if you rearrange some subset of the letters of words he's typed in the past, they spell out 'I am the Zodiac Killer'". Whether you realize it or not, your reasoning is that specious at best.

> The market for consumer electronics hasn't fundamentally threatened the stability of the US government every decade for the past 5 decades.

Nothing HFT has ever done has come within even 0.000001% to threatening the stability of the US government. Period.

> Renaissance Technologies Medallion fund may as well be an insider trading scheme for all the public can tell.

Again, claims require evidence. You need to provide that evidence. But more importantly, the fact that you compare RenTech's Medallion Fund to HFT again demonstrates your complete ignorance on the topic. The Medallion Fund isn't powered by high frequency trading. It started decades before HFT ever existed.

> Do HFTs issue or purchase billions of dollars of debt with the express goal of market liquidity? No? So why do you use the term "providing liquidity?" You know "providing liquidity" isn't the same thing as "frenetically purchasing and selling derivatives," right?

You don't know what providing liquidity means. When you place an order to buy or sell 100 shares of MSFT in the market, who is taking the other side of your order? The vast majority of the time, it's an HFT firm.

> If these funds didn't exist, I've seen no compelling evidence markets would so much as hiccup.

I'm sure if you took all of the grease out of your car engine, it would continue to operate without a hiccup.

> I've seen plenty of compelling evidence that much of financial services in this country are a net drain on its productive capacity.

Another false comparison. HFT is not a standard "financial service" that is provided to consumers.

> We'll have to agree to disagree [...] Time will tell!

Flat earthers also ignore reality and disagree, but that doesn't make their perspective equally as valid as those who look at pictures of the earth and conclude it's spherical. Time has already told us, but whether or not you want to look at facts or educate yourself on even the basics of what you think you're talking about is a different question.

Almost every sentence you said in your post contained some flat out false or wrong statements. Your unfounded arrogance is matched only by your ignorance on this topic. You have not made a single concrete or factual point about how HFT might be fraudulent, yet you seem to hold this worldview with the same conviction that the sun rises in the east.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#379
post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As mentioned earlier: phones and financial services are not similar. The market for consumer electronics hasn't fundamentally threatened the stability of the US government every decade for the past 5 decades. I can pick up an iPhone and use its features. It's clearly a complicated device with years of widely publicized, widely understood iterations. Renaissance Technologies Medallion fund may as well be an insider tr…

It's hard to continue this conversation in good faith without pointing out that you literally have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know what HFT firms or what market making actually is, yet you don't mind throwing out outrageous accusations of fraud and illegal activities with zero evidence to back it up. Your entire argument is "I don't know what they do, and they make money in finance, so they must be…

> who is taking the other side of your order?

Literally anyone. Literally any other market participant with interest in longterm ownership.

> Your entire argument is "I don't know what they do, and they make money in finance, so they must be doing it illegally." The burden is on you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

That's not my argument. Snakes bite. Highly profitable, speculative, and complicated US financial firms have consistently grown to threaten the stability of US financial systems before collapsing. Precedent matters. When an assertion violates a precedent, it's what must be proven. Your assertion has the burden of proof, and it's an incredibly high one at that.

> ...the fact that you compare RenTech's Medallion Fund to HFT again demonstrates your complete ignorance on the topic

Medallion is one of the most well regarded and profitable hedge funds in modern American history. It's a grandfather to modern HFTs. Even its sterling record is highly suspect.

I sincerely hope the American public doubles short term capital gains taxes and regulates financial markets back to the stone age. Smart people need to spend their time on engineering, medicine, and research. The amount of human capital wasted on silly little financial machinations these days sickens me. I go back and read about financiers jumping from building back in the 20s and I understand completely. Our best and brightest, so confident of what they had to gain, traded their potential in pursuit of Alchemy only to be left with nothing. And who can blame them? Newton fell for the same.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market coercion, regulatory capture, negligence, or any other plain old market manipulation like pump and dump or insider trading or bear raiding, etc. Enron straight up lied to regulators, many of their employees were also plain negligent. HFTs will probably find their own flavor of fraud given a few more years, if they haven't already.

> HFTs will probably find their own flavor of fraud given a few more years, if they haven't already. This is what psychics call a "cold reading" - a statement that is bound to be true eventually! At some point in the future HFTs will "find" (?) something approximating fraud. That almost can't not be true. But I don't see how it relates to your statement that Jane Street's reported profits are fraudulent.

Sure, that statement is a bit of a non sequitur. Here's one that isn't:

Highly profitable, speculative, and complicated US financial firms have consistently grown to threaten the stability of US financial systems before collapsing. As such, these types of firms have a high burden of proof for legitimacy. If that hasn't been met, betting on fraudulence is pretty safe given historical context.

Post reply on HN