Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- What is Jane Street doing these days? Still HFT MM?
- A little bit of everythingby mattlamz
- Usually ripping off retail investors - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y0zgrevl1oby dpacmittal
- It's all so sketchy. Jane Street were investors in SA but presumably were much more sophisticated and savvy than Leopold. When SA got in trouble, 3 firms got into a bid war for the assets at fire sale prices: Citadel, Jane Street and a third I forgot. Citadel outbid the other 2, but it's all weird, like Jane Street wanted in on the popular boy's book that they knew was going to tank and just were waiting around in the water like sharks.by lz400
- is it unreasonable to say that Jane Street was simply paying a small price for some situational awareness?
- > like Jane Street wanted in on the popular boy's book that they knew was going to tank
This is completely illogical. If they knew it was going to tank, they wouldn’t invest.
As conspiracy theories go, this one doesn’t even have a leg to stand on.
by Aurornis - Nothing about any of that is sketchy. It’s in their mutual interest to avoid a fire sale.
- If SA's losses were around $30B does that mean Jane Street owned half?by wmf
- Seems like it was banned, at least temporarily from trading in India: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y0zgrevl1oby pjg
- Ever since the infamous work of some of their alumni I have wondered what the culture of JS is actually like.by int32_64
- Read about their talent acquisition process and interview days. They certainly attract the most brilliant people, but it’s important guard rails are kept on them lest they repeat the same missteps their alumni have taken.by SanDiegoSun
- Same as any other hedge fund: avarice.by mcmcmc
- “By our calculations, Jane Street ponied up a one-off $200mn to do the deal and then locked in a further $200mn of costs per annum, at least in part, to avoid us gawping at their numbers every quarter. Wowsers” [1].
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/28a51284-98cc-4767-a306-0540d2656...
- > Jane Street has generated more than USD 40 000 000 000 in net trading revenues in the year to Friday, even accounting for the July loss, which exceeds its entire haul for 2025, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.by jt2190
- Archive link (https://archive.is/20260814213548/https://www.ft.com/content...)
Pretty short so I imagine more details and analysis are forthcoming.
by tolugenius - Really weird writing and grammar errors. Oddby redwood
- https://youtu.be/rE75WvOtcu8 This video from Patrick boyle has a lot of detail.by totetsu
- They're still up $25B for the year, so it's hard to feel bad for them :-)
On a more serious note, Jane Street has hired some very impressive technical talent. I'd work for them, myself, if I didn't have to relocate to Chicago.
by otterley - I don't think they even have a Chicago office, so it's good you didn't relocate there. They're based in New York.by bmitc
- Their nerd sniping is top notch. I almost accidentally applied for a job with them.by Lerc
- > They're still up $25B for the year, so it's hard to feel bad for them :-)
No, even better: they're still up $40B for the year.
by loeg - I've applied to Jane Street dozens of times, interviewed twice, and have always been declined.
Obviously I'm not entitled to a job, so no hard feelings on that, but it's a little sad because I have always been a big functional programming nerd and it would be fun to work with Ocaml libraries. The fact that they pay really well is also appealing...
by tombert - $25B is less than people realize.
They have $140B AUM.
So they are up ~18%.
https://observer.com/2024/11/jane-street-quantitative-tradin...
by alberth - Original headline is "Jane Street suffers $15bn loss in July market ructions".
HN guidelines do request use of original title and in this specific case the change of title is misleading by implying that situational awareness directly caused losses at JS.
In the text it says "the US trading firm was wrongfooted during last month’s market ructions including the meltdown at AI-focused hedge fund Situational Awareness" so while SA is mentioned the implications of a direct link to the losses is less strong.
edit: more detail in https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/jane-street-took-15... confirms some losses linked directly to SA and some losses to their own positions.
by fancyfredbot - >by implying that situational awareness directly caused losses at JS.
Correlation is not causation.
by jason_s - The real headline is buried in the article:
> Jane Street has generated more than $40bn in net trading revenues in the year to Friday, even accounting for the July loss, which exceeds its entire haul for 2025, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.
This would make JS one of the most profitable trading firms of all time even with the loss.
by jxf - Are they "trading" or "high-frequency-ripping-off-retail-investors"?
It's easy to make paper billions with synthetic shares and infinite deadline extensions for settlement. I'm old and still remember when Ken Griffin was lauded a clever person before he got caught with his hands in the GME mayo jar..
by bflesch - It's talking about revenue not profit
- by choult