Arbitrage that sticks around for years: those are scams dude. They involve collusion, not intelligence. I understand it might not be illegal collusion, but if either side of the transaction being scammed found out, they would find someone else to work with.
Trust me, I know. I've worked in ad tech.
But finding lots of different things to arbitrage and consistently being two weeks ahead of the competition is something you can do with a dedicated team of smart, experienced people, and this is the business model that Jane Street and others claim to be running.
Trust me I know about the inner workings of the Financial world because I did an internship at a Digital Marketing agency and totally didn't get coldly rejected by Jane Street when I applied for their Head of Trading position that I totally deserve because I'm like way smarter than those Harvard Math 55 morons.
Lol this is S tier cope or A tier trolling.
>Why in the absence of any positive evidence, like "oh here is our genius but nonetheless expired" trading strategy, which anyone could have furnished in the last two decades, they agree, oh it must be real?
I agree that there should be some obviously awesome things these funds did that they can share now given they are no longer able to exploit them. I have no idea if they have done so and I and GP are just not aware of it.
Maybe the guy is a bad dude, I don't have a horse in that race. But lots of trading strategies that have worked in the past are well known.
To be clear, it is described by SBF. I haven’t verified historical prices to confirm it. The journalist that wrote this article probably hasn’t either.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20221110141739/https://www.sequo...
Financial markets have a fascinating property: any well-known strategy that can be implemented at reasonable cost [0] stops working. This is because people implement it and the profit goes away. If Jane Street has a common sense strategy or three that makes money, they’re not telling you about it.
(I’m taking about actual market profits here. It is well known that you can make lots of money by charging fees on a lackluster fund as long as you can find investors.)
[0] The cost issue is real, and the relevant parameter is some combination of profit (revenue - opex), capex and risk. For example, one can make money (revenue) by being the fastest market on the block. But the revenue there is approximately bounded and competition has driven the cost up to insane levels, so it is not straightforward to do this profitably.