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

Understanding Jane Street

thediff.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 392 posts

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#81

Post by spoonjim »

j7ake wrote: post #77

Regarding the last point in working at Jane Street versus research on fusion/cancer: You could maximise more good by first working at Jane Street in your 20s, retire by 30, and then set up your own smal fusion/cancer research lab where you can do research without being tied to government funding and politics. By 30, many cancer researchers have barely finished their PhDs, so you won’t actually be that far behind scie…

I would suspect that almost zero people do this because working in an environment changes who you are as a person. If you spend a lot of time around cancer researchers you will think that cancer research is the most important thing in the world. You would need almost monastic mental compartmentalization to work at Jane Street for N years and remain singlemindedly focused on cancer research.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#82

Post by uniqueuid »

j7ake wrote: post #77

Regarding the last point in working at Jane Street versus research on fusion/cancer: You could maximise more good by first working at Jane Street in your 20s, retire by 30, and then set up your own smal fusion/cancer research lab where you can do research without being tied to government funding and politics. By 30, many cancer researchers have barely finished their PhDs, so you won’t actually be that far behind scie…

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 Hawkins demonstrated. Founded Palm, made money, then created his own brain research lab. As far as I understand, the neurological community has not embraced his ideas with open arms, but they are at least intrigued by his universal computational model of the brain. So that's a pretty big accomplishment.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#83

Post by govg »

spoonjim wrote: post #81
j7ake wrote: post #77

Regarding the last point in working at Jane Street versus research on fusion/cancer: You could maximise more good by first working at Jane Street in your 20s, retire by 30, and then set up your own smal fusion/cancer research lab where you can do research without being tied to government funding and politics. By 30, many cancer researchers have barely finished their PhDs, so you won’t actually be that far behind scie…

I would suspect that almost zero people do this because working in an environment changes who you are as a person. If you spend a lot of time around cancer researchers you will think that cancer research is the most important thing in the world. You would need almost monastic mental compartmentalization to work at Jane Street for N years and remain singlemindedly focused on cancer research.

Tangentially related is the movement of Effective Altruism, which is basically espousing taking a high paying job and then using the rewards to make a change.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#84

Post by defrost »

Inconel wrote: post #49
CoolGuySteve wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a bunch of these firms. And when you pass the gauntlet, you realize that the people are smart but no smarter than at other firms. At some point, the strict hiring filter just produces noise. If anything, having that many achievers results in bored people doing things that are suboptimal for the performance of the firm as a whole. Whole divisions of wasted talent spawn and self perpetuate. It's the hiring pr…

Don’t mean to hijack this thread but seeing as you have a background in the industry I was hoping you could answer a couple questions I had: 1. What do these firms typically look for in support staff? I’m asking about non trading/quant roles like recruiting/ops/facilities management? 2. What’s the potential upside, not specifically financial, but more along career growth and opportunities for different roles within t…

You might have a focus-in ability to grind on details - that will play.

There are many support roles, one is research, and that can mean sorting through a daily pile of a few thousand "documents" (ranging from a single paragraph to a thousand pages) and sorting them into groups, and then being able to rapidly summerise the salient features.

This bleeds into training AI to do the same .. while remaining aware of the nature of the material to be a human check on the AI.

There are also roles for people that can map or otherwise visualise data, pander to the needs of the core earners so that they never need reach far for what food, drink, personal life support they need, etc.

If you're aiming for support you likely want to present your discretion and ability to seamlessly play well with others as dynamics and demands change.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#85

Post by llaolleh »

spoonjim wrote: post #81
j7ake wrote: post #77

Regarding the last point in working at Jane Street versus research on fusion/cancer: You could maximise more good by first working at Jane Street in your 20s, retire by 30, and then set up your own smal fusion/cancer research lab where you can do research without being tied to government funding and politics. By 30, many cancer researchers have barely finished their PhDs, so you won’t actually be that far behind scie…

I would suspect that almost zero people do this because working in an environment changes who you are as a person. If you spend a lot of time around cancer researchers you will think that cancer research is the most important thing in the world. You would need almost monastic mental compartmentalization to work at Jane Street for N years and remain singlemindedly focused on cancer research.

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.”

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#86

Post by spoonjim »

govg wrote: post #83
spoonjim wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suspect that almost zero people do this because working in an environment changes who you are as a person. If you spend a lot of time around cancer researchers you will think that cancer research is the most important thing in the world. You would need almost monastic mental compartmentalization to work at Jane Street for N years and remain singlemindedly focused on cancer research.

Tangentially related is the movement of Effective Altruism, which is basically espousing taking a high paying job and then using the rewards to make a change.

The existence of a "movement" makes it much more likely to succeed. If you are working at Goldman Sachs during the day, you need to be talking to Effective Altruism friends at night, or you will almost certainly be washed away in the current of Goldman Sachs value systems.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#87

Post by spoonjim »

benreesman wrote: post #79
j7ake wrote: post #77

Regarding the last point in working at Jane Street versus research on fusion/cancer: You could maximise more good by first working at Jane Street in your 20s, retire by 30, and then set up your own smal fusion/cancer research lab where you can do research without being tied to government funding and politics. By 30, many cancer researchers have barely finished their PhDs, so you won’t actually be that far behind scie…

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.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#89

Post by j7ake »

uniqueuid wrote: post #82
j7ake wrote: post #77

Regarding the last point in working at Jane Street versus research on fusion/cancer: You could maximise more good by first working at Jane Street in your 20s, retire by 30, and then set up your own smal fusion/cancer research lab where you can do research without being tied to government funding and politics. By 30, many cancer researchers have barely finished their PhDs, so you won’t actually be that far behind scie…

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.

For fusion research, the quantitative skills from many Jane Street people can easily transfer to make meaningful contributions to fusion research.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#90

Post by uniqueuid »

j7ake wrote: post #89
uniqueuid wrote: post #82

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…

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…

But that's not the interesting part, right? That would be like saying that tech is simply assembling prototypes. The really interesting decisions are the strategic ones that require both a high-level overview of the opportunity landscape and some foundational knowledge of its feasibility. Or am I mistaken and it's simply brute force trials?
Post reply on HN