$20B in Profits in 6 Months…Could You Trade Like Jane Street?
In 2000, a little-known proprietary trading firm was founded—Jane Street Capital. Last year marked the fourth consecutive year Jane Street achieved net trading revenue over $10 billion, and in the first half of this year, it made $20 billion in profits, easily outperforming giants like Goldman Sachs.
Jane Street uses its own capital and technology-driven trading strategies (complex algorithms for risk management and exploiting market opportunities) to become a major player in the quantitative trading world.
And here’s a fun fact: this highly profitable firm pays its interns $250,000 per year, while the Federal Reserve Chair’s salary is $203,500. In other words, Powell earns less than a Jane Street intern.
You may not know this company, but it frequently makes headlines. For example:
On January 17, 2024, Jane Street reportedly made $80 million in a single day by trading Indian Bank Nifty index options. This came after HDFC Bank released earnings the day before, causing the market to drop. Jane Street seized the opportunity with complex trading strategies.
Over two years, the firm reportedly earned over $4.3 billion in India, but last week it was heavily penalized by SEBI, banned from trading, and ordered to return $550 million of illicit gains.
In August, it was Tesla’s second-largest short, drawing a public warning from Musk.
More recently, after revealing its position in Opendoor, the stock jumped 20%.
So, what do you think about Jane Street’s legendary story?
With AI algorithms increasingly impacting the stock market, do you think firms like Jane Street, which profit from complex algorithmic strategies, have a brighter future?
Would you follow their holdings?
Do you think we still need financial advisors today?
$IT stock lost 46% YTD.
If your answer is yes, which advisor would you trust more, haha?
Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.
If AI can truly emerge superior, I think many of the interns will lose their jobs. Money can now be made at a lower cost. I don’t see AI being able to replace firms like Jane street. The human is still required to ensure that the output makes sense before deploying it. Afterall, it is better to be safe than sorry especially with such huge funds involved. I won’t follow their holdings as usually the train would have left when they announced their holdings. I think it would be easier to invest in these firms instead.
Financial advisors are still relevant to those who do not have time or the technical know-how to manage their funds. For those who know, there is no need for financial advisors as many products are openly available.
With AI and algorithms shaping global trading, I believe firms like Jane Street have a strong edge. Their speed and strategies let them exploit market inefficiencies far better than humans, and this advantage may keep growing. That said, their trades are often short-term and complex, so I wouldn’t simply follow their positions.
Financial advisors still have a role. While machines dominate algorithmic trading, human guidance matters for long-term planning and emotional decisions. I’d trust a hybrid approach—data-driven, but with human judgment—to navigate both market strategy and personal goals.
@Tiger_comments @TigerStars
Check them in the history - “community distribution“[Tongue][Onlooker][Love you]
当然，简街也并非完美。像印度市场那次事件被罚5.5亿美元，就是提醒我们：再强的模型也有灰色地带。当AI算法深入金融系统后，监管和道德界限将变得更加模糊。
我个人认为，未来十年金融市场将被像简街这样的量化机构主导。人工智能让他们能在毫秒间捕捉套利空间，而普通投资者只能“慢半拍”。至于财务顾问，或许仍有存在价值，但更多是心理辅导而非投资决策。要说信任谁？我宁愿信任冰冷但精准的算法，也胜过情绪化的“人类判断”。
For the life of me, I will never understand why Mr. Elon keeps trying to interfere with world politics when he can quietly hoard his gold. Focus your energy on improving what you are good at, not try and take shortcuts.
據報道，兩年多來，該公司賺了超過印度43億美元，但上週是受到SEBI重罰、禁止交易，並責令返還5.5億美元非法所得.
在八月是特斯拉的第二大空頭，引來馬斯克的公開警告。
Following their “holdings” isn’t practical — their positions are opaque, short-term, and hedged. At best, treat public filings as signals, not templates.
Financial advisors still matter: algorithms can’t manage behaviour, taxes, or life goals. Advisors now act more as strategists and behavioural coaches than stock-pickers.
As for SIT stock’s 46% YTD drop — it reflects weak fundamentals and shrinking margins. It’s a cautionary tale: algorithmic brilliance can’t save a firm with poor execution or fading demand.
Great article, would you like to share it?