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

91–100 of 392 posts

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#91

Post by geoalchimista »

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…

> It’s mostly grunt work and whatever technical skills can be learned by a high school student over a summer.

Who do you think is supervising the high school student? Where does the idea for the project come from? Where does the money supporting the high school intern' experiments come from?

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#92

Post by bibabaloo »

From the article:

> One example of this is NAV trading (Jane Street has a paper here), where an investor wants to place a large trade in an ETF and agrees to buy it at some future point at whatever its net asset value is, less some small fee.

Should this say "agrees to buy it at some future point at whatever its net asset value is *NOW*"? Otherwise, I'm confused, why wouldn't the investor just buy it later?

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#93

Post by arcturus17 »

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…

So you can do break-through research after having done a little bit of wet work in a cancer research institute, as a 30-year old who has been coding quant systems for a decade, and then become equivalent to a PhD in the field?

Or you can take your ~10M or whatever in earnings during a decade as an OCaml programmer at Jane Street and fund a cutting-edge cancer research lab?

Are you reading yourself after you type?

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#94

Post by PoignardAzur »

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.

I'd temper the above statement a bit. The "get rich, then donate a lot" strategy is one of the paths popular in Effective Altruism.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#96

Post by benreesman »

spoonjim wrote: post #87
benreesman wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're the best kind of correct, which is technically correct. But what I said is that "multiplied by every retirement account we're talking real money". Which is no-qualifiers correct.

That ETF that you should have your roll in? It's buying and selling securities all the time, and encountering friction along the way. And whether people have ETFs or individual equities in their (hopefully tax-advantaged) retirement account, across everyone with a retirement account it adds up.

I know that people often have a low-key axe to grind about advanced market actors being "bad", and I know that politicians go to the well with this narrative all the time, but it's misleading at best and usually just demonstrably wrong. And with nothing but respect, I tend to bow out of conversations where people push the issue past a comment or two.

There are exceptions: Citadel paying 2x for PFOF on Robinhood vs. Schwab to get optionality on internalizing against dumb flow? Yeah, that's pretty iffy. But in general advanced actors are slicing strips of meat off of each other to the benefit of 401ks everywhere.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#97

Post by rgifford »

bitanarch wrote: post #72
julianeon wrote: post #32

Something I don’t understand: Why haven’t their gains been arbitraged away? Conceptually what they do seems simple enough; and presumably you just need capital to do it. Hell, their own former employees could theoretically compete against them - as could many traders who would pay to learn those strategies. So why are they still making so much? I don’t understand why their “advantage” hasn’t been arbitrated away into…

Imagine someone outside of the tech community thinking along this line... "Making high performance CPUs that are also highly power efficient should make a ton of money. Why isn't everyone doing it?" Well, turns out that isn't exactly something that a small group of engineers can whip up in a garage anymore. Same goes for highly efficient market making systems.

CPUs operate due to quantified phenomenon. They're well understood. They've been refined over nearly 100 years.

HFTs came into their own over the past decade or so -- during a time of falling interest rates, unprecedented growth, and notable lack of regulation in financial markets.

One of these things is not like the other. I'd be entirely unsurprised to see most HFTs turn out like Lehman Brothers, Enron, or AIG. They all lasted more than a decade or so. But their gains were fraudulent and they failed spectacularly.

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#98

Post by pigtailgirl »

-- only managed to make it half way through the article so apologies if this was covered later - re: the intern game - if the game is confidence in the probability of your answers - couldn't you deliberately get the answers wrong and just bet low confidence in your answers? - this seems like a really stupid comment on my part so I presume I'm missing something important --

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#99

Post by Donckele »

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…

The article should not have delved into this as its a can of worms - stick with the industry, programming and math.

Its funny that the article uses a “chess champion” and a “concert pianist” as examples to to argue that you don’t question their occupations when it comes to being a benefit to mankind or not. I mean, the huge fucking salaries, where does the money come from? from fucking trees?

WTF! Seriously? I predict this will be one of the first article/HN post that has negative publicity for Jane Street .

Re: Understanding Jane Street

#100

Post by esoterica »

spoonjim wrote: post #87
benreesman wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the only people who trade AAPL plan on holding it for 10 years then by the time they want to sell it there will be no one to buy it from them, since the probability that someone else will want to make their once-every-10-years trade at the exact same time is zero. In order for long term investors to function they need liquidity to enter and exit positions.
Post reply on HN