3 ms·
> I see it another way. I see people's hard earned money being siphoned by enormous financially-engineered vacuums, never to be seen again. And not just in the
by alchemist1e9 2y ago
> I see it another way. I see people's hard earned money being siphoned by enormous financially-engineered vacuums, never to be seen again. And not just in the US, globally. This won't stop at 30% of the US equity market. It won't stop until the music stops and the last chair breaks. Which may or may not be soon. It will certainly be coming at some point.
Envious bullshit! The reason they are so profitable is that believe it or not they are replacing earlier operators who were less efficient and taking more transactions costs out of the system before. To be anti-Jane Street is the same as being pro-Big Bank of the past, that was taking more money out of the economy doing a worse job!
Unless you know the history of global financial markets and lived it then you don’t understand. For example in the late 80s the CBOT treasury bond bit had over 1000 traders in that pit. They were all making money and quite a few a huge amount. And there was many more people supporting those traders of the floor. That was just a single futures bond contract! With Jane Street we have 2,631 employees doing the equivalent job globally and for less total cost of at least 80,000 employees in late 80s.
The profits per employee are higher obviously but that’s the effect of technology and productivity but the total price being charged to the economy as a whole is much lower. This trend will continue and I would not be surprised in 10 years that a company of 200 people will provide the entire function of those 2600 today, and probably the profits per employee will be $10M per person. But that’s what we want, is a good thing not bad, portraying otherwise is just Envy.
- EMM_386 2y ago> Envious bullshit! No, no ... it's not. First of all I don't care one iota about Jane Street or how much money Jane Street employees make. The problem is that this money has to come from somewhere. And while you say it's due to the entire system becoming more efficient, that's not the full story. That $1 billion Indian options play came at the expense of Indian retail investors. So yes, there is a siphoning of money out of the hands of the retail investors and into the vast pool growing under Jane Street and its employees, much as it has done under others like Citadel. Who is that good for, except Jane Street? If you look the per capita income from where it's leaving to where it's going, that's where I see a growing problem. There may be a sucker born every minute, but that doesn't mean that this is all just about making markets more efficient. And, of course, none of this would have been possible without the additional "liquidity" provided ... the clearly essential contribution that makes it all justified. "We provide liquidity!". Ok ... ? There's some efficiency improvements too, but ... eh.