7 ms·

Hopefully the Simons empire has enough people who will keep executing his vision and stave off bureaucratic rot. Making money is one thing, but circulating so

Hopefully the Simons empire has enough people who will keep executing his vision and stave off bureaucratic rot. Making money is one thing, but circulating so much of it back through math and science is a great legacy.

hinkley 2y ago
I wonder if he left any of the rest of his money to the foundation, or if it all stays with his family.
- paulpauper 2y ago
  https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=288 https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=288 giving it away
altruios 2y ago
sadly, the trend for these sorts of things is to sour after the original founder leaves... There is an esoteric concept that has some dynamics that explain this phenomenon somewhat. Not to get to into the weeds (the origins of this concept are esoteric religious ideas - I mean this secularly, as it relates to business entities) but the concept is an 'egregore' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore#:~:text=An%20egregore%20(also%20spelled%20egregor,a%20distinct%20group%20of%20individuals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore#:~:text=An%20egregore.... I don't see it on the Wikipedia page, but the theory that explains the degradation of a companies original mission statement can be summarized as this: "Within an organization(egregore) there exists three classes of individuals... the primary two of which are those that serve in the name of the egregore, and those that serve the egregore directly, the third (a smaller %) being those un-loyal to the current structure and would change the egregore to suit their needs. Of the main two: The dichotomy can be spilt along lines like developers/founders vs marketers/sales, where developers are interested in serving the mission statement and developing a good product, and marketers are interested in growth and survival, at the expense of everything else. So when the developers/founders leave, the vacuum that is created is filled either by those that would change the egregore, or corrupt the mission statement in the name of growth and profit." This is a simplistic model - with a fair bit of predictive and explanatory power. I have found it useful to describe that shift inside a corporation.
- agumonkey 2y ago
  I find the tension between founders(idealists) / marketers(survivalists) pretty interesting. The Jobs-less apple era is one recent instance I assume.
  - altruios 2y ago
    Both are needed. But Currently there are no checks in place to prevent this 'mind-share' take-over, so to speak...
- mr_woozy 2y ago
  [dead]
- next_xibalba 2y ago
  Simons has been out of day-to-day management for quite some time. He was succeeded by co-CEOs who were then themselves succeeded, IIRC. (These are my recollections from reading The Man Who Solved the Market). Apparently his management style was always pretty hands off and they operated multiple successful quant strategies that were led by others. Their Medallion fund returned 22% after (huge) fees in 2022 according to the WSJ. [1] That's the employee only fund that has blown the doors off for 30+ years. They do have a few other funds that manage much more $ and manage external money that have never performed at Medallion's level. In other words, it seems like succession will not be a major risk for them in the near term. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-hedge-funds-are-top-performers-for-a-change-11674094967 https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-hedge-funds-are-top-perform...
  - altruios 2y ago
    It would imply good processes for keeping out those that would run it to the ground in the name of (short term) profits... That makes me hopeful... But every succession is a risk. Every merger is a risk... ask Boeing.
- martin-t 2y ago
  This split exists not just in organizations but in society at large. Some people are builders and some are redistributors. Builders take pride in creating value and redistributors can provide useful service by making value available to more people. Very often engineers are not interested in marketing/selling their product and redistributors fill a useful niche. However, some fraction of redistributors are willing to enrich themselves at the expense of others. These should never be allowed to make decisions affecting others. A founder should always look for people from the first group by looking at their past behavior and make sure those succeed him.
qq66 2y ago
The thing is that he genuinely loved math. I don't think there's really anyone in his orbit who loves math as much. His family is his family and his colleagues love money. We'll see in the coming months and years whether he was able to create a structure that continues his legacy but usually the answer to that question is no.
- caddemon 2y ago
  His foundation also donates a lot to neuroscience research, particularly for Autism. I think there was a family reason for that, so probably at least some of his scientific philanthropy will continue for awhile. But yeah it's extremely hard to create a structure that would perpetuate without the remaining people at the top truly buying into and understanding the mission.
  - ironSkillet 2y ago
    I have heard that he had at least one child with autism, hence his desire to fund efforts to better fund autism and the brain.
- jdonaldson 2y ago
  It's hard watching venerable institutions rot into "just avoid administerial short term blame" death loops. You have to have skin in the game, not just hire a temporary manager for it.
  - anonymouse008 2y ago
    subtweet @apple
- paulpauper 2y ago
  I think it's doable. Institutions under top leadership can thrive long after its founders die. This is true of almost every Fortune 500 company. I am sure there is enough redundancy to continue the foundation's goal. Carnegie foundation or Ford foundation, or Apple computers after jobs died .
bmitc 2y ago
For what it's worth, the foundation was actually kickstarted by his wife.
- m463 2y ago
  I used to think this kind of thing was because someone didn't care. But I also think someone is at high level, a partner might be the only one who can look at things from above, seeing the big big picture. Of course it could be the person doesn't care, but it could also be the person is busy, etc
  - bmitc 2y ago
    I actually think they both cared. My comment was more to point out that she is still alive and is a computer scientist, so the foundation still has founding leadership.
wslh 2y ago
It is not about enough people, it is about THE PERSON. Every people is different and there are people who are more different and outliers.
eru 2y ago
> Hopefully the Simons empire has enough people who will keep executing his vision and stave off bureaucratic rot. I think that fear is why the Gates foundation (or was it the one by Buffett or both?) have to spend down their endowment within a few years of the founder's death and then close shop.

hinkley 2y ago

I wonder if he left any of the rest of his money to the foundation, or if it all stays with his family.

paulpauper 2y ago
https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=288 https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=288 giving it away

altruios 2y ago

sadly, the trend for these sorts of things is to sour after the original founder leaves... There is an esoteric concept that has some dynamics that explain this phenomenon somewhat. Not to get to into the weeds (the origins of this concept are esoteric religious ideas - I mean this secularly, as it relates to business entities) but the concept is an 'egregore' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore#:~:text=An%20egregore%20(also%20spelled%20egregor,a%20distinct%20group%20of%20individuals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore#:~:text=An%20egregore.... I don't see it on the Wikipedia page, but the theory that explains the degradation of a companies original mission statement can be summarized as this: "Within an organization(egregore) there exists three classes of individuals... the primary two of which are those that serve in the name of the egregore, and those that serve the egregore directly, the third (a smaller %) being those un-loyal to the current structure and would change the egregore to suit their needs. Of the main two: The dichotomy can be spilt along lines like developers/founders vs marketers/sales, where developers are interested in serving the mission statement and developing a good product, and marketers are interested in growth and survival, at the expense of everything else. So when the developers/founders leave, the vacuum that is created is filled either by those that would change the egregore, or corrupt the mission statement in the name of growth and profit." This is a simplistic model - with a fair bit of predictive and explanatory power. I have found it useful to describe that shift inside a corporation.

agumonkey 2y ago
I find the tension between founders(idealists) / marketers(survivalists) pretty interesting. The Jobs-less apple era is one recent instance I assume.
- altruios 2y ago
  Both are needed. But Currently there are no checks in place to prevent this 'mind-share' take-over, so to speak...
mr_woozy 2y ago
[dead]
next_xibalba 2y ago
Simons has been out of day-to-day management for quite some time. He was succeeded by co-CEOs who were then themselves succeeded, IIRC. (These are my recollections from reading The Man Who Solved the Market). Apparently his management style was always pretty hands off and they operated multiple successful quant strategies that were led by others. Their Medallion fund returned 22% after (huge) fees in 2022 according to the WSJ. [1] That's the employee only fund that has blown the doors off for 30+ years. They do have a few other funds that manage much more $ and manage external money that have never performed at Medallion's level. In other words, it seems like succession will not be a major risk for them in the near term. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-hedge-funds-are-top-performers-for-a-change-11674094967 https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-hedge-funds-are-top-perform...
- altruios 2y ago
  It would imply good processes for keeping out those that would run it to the ground in the name of (short term) profits... That makes me hopeful... But every succession is a risk. Every merger is a risk... ask Boeing.
martin-t 2y ago
This split exists not just in organizations but in society at large. Some people are builders and some are redistributors. Builders take pride in creating value and redistributors can provide useful service by making value available to more people. Very often engineers are not interested in marketing/selling their product and redistributors fill a useful niche. However, some fraction of redistributors are willing to enrich themselves at the expense of others. These should never be allowed to make decisions affecting others. A founder should always look for people from the first group by looking at their past behavior and make sure those succeed him.

qq66 2y ago

The thing is that he genuinely loved math. I don't think there's really anyone in his orbit who loves math as much. His family is his family and his colleagues love money. We'll see in the coming months and years whether he was able to create a structure that continues his legacy but usually the answer to that question is no.

caddemon 2y ago
His foundation also donates a lot to neuroscience research, particularly for Autism. I think there was a family reason for that, so probably at least some of his scientific philanthropy will continue for awhile. But yeah it's extremely hard to create a structure that would perpetuate without the remaining people at the top truly buying into and understanding the mission.
- ironSkillet 2y ago
  I have heard that he had at least one child with autism, hence his desire to fund efforts to better fund autism and the brain.
jdonaldson 2y ago
It's hard watching venerable institutions rot into "just avoid administerial short term blame" death loops. You have to have skin in the game, not just hire a temporary manager for it.
- anonymouse008 2y ago
  subtweet @apple
paulpauper 2y ago
I think it's doable. Institutions under top leadership can thrive long after its founders die. This is true of almost every Fortune 500 company. I am sure there is enough redundancy to continue the foundation's goal. Carnegie foundation or Ford foundation, or Apple computers after jobs died .

bmitc 2y ago

For what it's worth, the foundation was actually kickstarted by his wife.

m463 2y ago
I used to think this kind of thing was because someone didn't care. But I also think someone is at high level, a partner might be the only one who can look at things from above, seeing the big big picture. Of course it could be the person doesn't care, but it could also be the person is busy, etc
- bmitc 2y ago
  I actually think they both cared. My comment was more to point out that she is still alive and is a computer scientist, so the foundation still has founding leadership.

wslh 2y ago

It is not about enough people, it is about THE PERSON. Every people is different and there are people who are more different and outliers.

eru 2y ago

> Hopefully the Simons empire has enough people who will keep executing his vision and stave off bureaucratic rot. I think that fear is why the Gates foundation (or was it the one by Buffett or both?) have to spend down their endowment within a few years of the founder's death and then close shop.