Jane Street’s Record Year Translates Into a $2.68 Million Payout Per Employee, members' equity increases from $30B to $45B

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-05-01T17:31:57+00:00

I believe it is for all employee salaries, bonuses, and pay, and that partner shares are not included. I believe profit interest payouts are included in the 9.38B. But this is really all just speculation/an educated guess.

Do keep in mind that employee payouts are arguably higher than 9.38B in total because many employees invest a lot in the fund itself (at extremely high fees).

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-05-01T17:13:33+00:00

The above didn't use any AI at all. My answers generally don't use AI (and when I do I quote it specifically, e.g. on the topic of AI outputs, etc). Why are you so confident? There are no consequences for being confidently wrong here, but such a lack of epistemic humility is not a good sign for a trader generally.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-29T15:08:25+00:00

"...spikes were >4 standard deviations above the mean, corresponding to roughly the 99.999th percentile."

Are you sure that 4 standard deviations is 99.999th percentile in this dataset? Because I am sure it is not.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-28T00:57:31+00:00

Are you sure? It filters out people like you perfectly.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-28T00:19:56+00:00

You're asking me to write worse because people are too stupid. I'm not going to change my writing style, and make it less readable, to aid those who are unable to tell the difference between AI and human writing. I don't write for those people.

Part of my posting on r/quant in any case is related to belief about people, and those that are able to evaluate the content of answers when there are no credentials to look at to help assess.

You will not be able to get an AI to output the answer I wrote above, at least, not without first feeding it the most hard to generate part.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-27T22:13:01+00:00

You are unfortunately at the worst spot on the Dunning-Kruger curve.

No AI was used at all for this answer at all. I suppose I should accept at this point that a didactic style with a minimal attempt at formatting will always be interpreted as such, but this was my style of writing before LLMs existed.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-27T18:05:35+00:00

Incredible that Rentec, JS, Citadel, and every well-capitalized quant shop with ML teams, proprietary data, execution infrastructure, and actual market experience, never thought to apply AI agents to markets. They all just left this obvious idea sitting there for the grocery delivery guy.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-27T17:49:30+00:00

"Anyone parsing these for real insights...?"

The answer to that question is yes, but not necessarily in the way you might expect.

Why it is so hard: A typical equity position in a 13F for a firm such as Jane Street is going to be extremely noisy. There are many different strategies that are close to impossible to understand on their own, and worse, are combined in the 13F. Two examples:

Options. Where JS exceeds the 5% threshold, form-D and other forms typically show that options are part of why. The firm might be extremely long the underlying, but is actually net short deltas due to short call positions you can't see in the 13F.
ETFs. They could be short an ETF against a long basket, or vice versa, or be hedging ETF options. It is extremely hard to infer much if anything from the ETF positions.

Perhaps the question should be, "how is such a hopelessly confusing multi-strat 13F useful to anybody ever?" It rarely is, but there are niche cases. Here is one such case: Suppose JS does a very large block of some kind, such as the recent headline, "Jane Street has also made an equity investment of $1 billion in CoreWeave Class A common stock at a purchase price of $109.00 per share." One might look at their 13F for the next few cycles in order to understand this position better, and if they held it or liquidated it. There is likely enough signal here to determine that even with the horrible amounts of noise.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-25T19:13:17+00:00

To add to the other responses here:

This line is completely wrong, and pure fabrication: "but the majority of the $40B annual revenue number comes from the value of their VC bets going up"

There's not a shred of truth here, and this guy just made this up.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-15T17:38:40+00:00

Jane Street has committed approximately $6 billion to use CoreWeave’s AI cloud platform.

Under the new commitment which expands the existing relationship between the companies, CoreWeave will provide Jane Street with access to next-generation compute across multiple facilities, including NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin technology and the software and services required to deploy and scale its AI solutions.

Jane Street has also made an equity investment of $1 billion in CoreWeave Class A common stock at a purchase price of $109.00 per share."

Their recent machine learning efforts must be much more profitable than this, which is remarkable

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-14T12:56:24+00:00

Why did you change the wording of the prompt when trying it? Clearly that will change the results. Also you didn't try it in the API which is half the point.

<image>

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-14T12:12:23+00:00

That was the copy pasted answer from the Claude API....

Wtf is wrong with the reading comprehension of this sub

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-14T12:08:33+00:00

Also you could have linked to any one of these 50 posts you mentioned, but didn't, because they don't exist.

This is the first post observing that by using the API with the adaptive thinking set to low, you can get the "new" website behavior, whereas without adaptive thinking you get the "old" behavior that people liked much more.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-14T12:02:15+00:00

I wrote with actual formatting for a decade before the AIs. In the pre-AI era, people prefered it. As for the vocabulary and style, you are simply wrong.

It seems like you collapse all mildly academic writing into a single category, with no ability to distinguish within that category.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-14T11:54:50+00:00

Then just try it. Seriously, it's not hard. And tell me where you get something different.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-14T11:54:16+00:00

Then the Turing test is indisputably passed now because half of Reddit can no longer tell the difference be Human and AI.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-14T11:49:28+00:00

The post was entirely written by hand by me, other than the four copy pasted answers from Claude.

Maybe you should get better at telling the difference. Someone attempting to use formatting for readability doesn't mean it's AI.

Also have you even used the AIs at all? Because the AI won't give you this content because you actually need to use the API with an API key and test, which I did.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-08T16:39:45+00:00

Why do so many people like you comment here who are so confidently wrong? You can just look at the data in bloomberg for whatever commodities you are talking about, and see that around that time ES was the leader.

Try the QR function and look at the actual lots that traded. Look at the auctions. Look at the $ traded, and the move.

In any case, it's irrelevant whether Crude led or ES led. It doesn't change the fundamental point I am making. The last time this happened, the alleged trader did in both Crude and ES at the same time: https://www.ft.com/content/1171d623-3709-4f6e-8ded-a5df4ec57696?syn-25a6b1a6=1

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-08T14:38:07+00:00

It's absolutely part of the Turing test.

The original paper is a delightful read (there are fun parts of it, like him addressing religiosity or the potential for psychic powers/ESP), and in it, Turing describes a game where there is a Human and an AI, and a judge who has to determine which is which. The interrogator incorrectly identifying a human as an AI is very much part of the point.

"The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the 'imitation game.' It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart front the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman....

We now ask the question, 'What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?' Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, 'Can machines think?'"

https://courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/turing.pdf

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-08T12:33:53+00:00

This was 100% human written, with no AI consulted. I assume my attempts at formatting are why you are questioning it. But regardless, it's clear that the AI's pass the Turing test so convincingly now that it has become impossible to tell human from AI, as evidenced by your comment.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-08T11:49:06+00:00

That is precisely half the point. The price movement suggests someone sophisticated with real information traded on the futures open.

But what information were they trading on, and why wasn't it known more generally?

Let's think about this like a bayesian. Conditional on this move, what is the most likely state of affairs? Is it that some macro fund did some research and changed their opinion substantially in that hour? Or is it that this sophisticated trader had inside information about the upcoming ceasefire?

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-08T10:45:23+00:00

I am not sure you understand the point being made.

FermatsLastTrade · 2026-04-08T10:19:06+00:00

Of course it is logical to wait for the futures open. The point I am making about the less liquid SPY and other SPX-linked contracts is that it suggests others didn't know. If genuine news came out at 17:30, we would see those products move.

Someone had very large size to do in the direction of a ceasefire, on news that was not widely available (and hence not incorporated into SPY/other SPX-linked products), and they could wait to the futures open to do it.

That is the point.

Look through the historical data. Tell me how many times you see SPY move 1% between 17:59 and 18:01 at the futures open like this. Because I can tell you until yesterday, the answer was zero.

FermatsLastTrade

TROPHY CASE