Understanding Jane Street

Post by robertlagrant » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 3:41 PM UTC

rgifford wrote: post #380

robertlagrant wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Fair. I disagree with "consistent". Some highly profitable, speculative, and complicated US financial firms have done this, but others haven't. E.g. insurance firms.

Post by topologie » Fri, Aug 05, 2022, 3:53 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #120

melony wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since this is Hacker News, let's not beat about the bush. Here's a channel that actually go through derivatives pricing without hiding the math: https://youtube.com/c/QuantPy/videos

Whenever the topic comes up, I throw out a reference to Hull's Futures, Options and other derivatives, Wilmott's Quantitative Finance, and possibly also Taleb's Dynamic Hedging. That's more than enough on the instrument math side, most of what you'll see is pretty mundane stuff, unless you end up on an exotics structuring desk. I'd also note that JS and other MMs mostly don't do anything requiring you to know the int…

This. Exactly this.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

Re: Understanding Jane Street