3 ms·

> They provide market liquidity. I actually know a little about this space. You know what the easiest response is that is always the answer? "We provide liqu

> They provide market liquidity. I actually know a little about this space. You know what the easiest response is that is always the answer? "We provide liquidity". Sounds important, most people don't get it, it works. But it's not like the market is going to grind to a halt if Jane Street disappears overnight. Of course, people will say that. Not people telling you the truth. I actually considered "but, but, THE LIQUIDITY!" in my answer but I felt there was sufficient snark.

zie 2y ago
Agreed, orders maybe wouldn't fill quite as fast, but it's not like markets would fall over and die.
- alchemist1e9 2y ago
  Yes they would. It would be a significant and catastrophic mistake to restrict trading based on feelings of envy. It would be technically negative in every measurement possible. So many poor policies originate from Envy and poor reasoning not grounded in logic and understanding of free markets and economics. This would be yet another classic example of that.
  - zie 2y ago
    As we have talked about in the other part of this thread, envy has absolutely nothing to do with it. Stop thinking it does. You are starting to sound like a broken record. > It would be technically negative in every measurement possible. Since you believe this so strongly, can you provide academic sources for this perspective?
    - alchemist1e9 2y ago
      > envy has absolutely nothing to do with it Please do tell me then, what exactly motivates all the proposals for restricting trading periods or changing to auctions? All I have seen is that Jane Street and other make “too much money”. The reality is actually different they provide a service in 20 countries across all asset classes and do it for only $12B/year, that’s actually very cheap once the scope of their reach and operations are understood. Please explain what is the motivation other than envy behind the numerous comments proposing some restrictions or claiming they aren’t worse or even better. There are definitely academic sources that will backup my assertions however the irony is that my position somehow needs to be defended when it’s actually obvious to anyone who has spent a lifetime on the inside of the very system we are discussing and that somehow absurdist proposals about restricting market hours are accepted on face value without any rational or academic evidence whatsoever.

zie 2y ago

Agreed, orders maybe wouldn't fill quite as fast, but it's not like markets would fall over and die.

alchemist1e9 2y ago
Yes they would. It would be a significant and catastrophic mistake to restrict trading based on feelings of envy. It would be technically negative in every measurement possible. So many poor policies originate from Envy and poor reasoning not grounded in logic and understanding of free markets and economics. This would be yet another classic example of that.
- zie 2y ago
  As we have talked about in the other part of this thread, envy has absolutely nothing to do with it. Stop thinking it does. You are starting to sound like a broken record. > It would be technically negative in every measurement possible. Since you believe this so strongly, can you provide academic sources for this perspective?
  - alchemist1e9 2y ago
    > envy has absolutely nothing to do with it Please do tell me then, what exactly motivates all the proposals for restricting trading periods or changing to auctions? All I have seen is that Jane Street and other make “too much money”. The reality is actually different they provide a service in 20 countries across all asset classes and do it for only $12B/year, that’s actually very cheap once the scope of their reach and operations are understood. Please explain what is the motivation other than envy behind the numerous comments proposing some restrictions or claiming they aren’t worse or even better. There are definitely academic sources that will backup my assertions however the irony is that my position somehow needs to be defended when it’s actually obvious to anyone who has spent a lifetime on the inside of the very system we are discussing and that somehow absurdist proposals about restricting market hours are accepted on face value without any rational or academic evidence whatsoever.