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

Jane Street’s rise is remarkable. From a small trading firm in 2000 to generating tens of billions in profit, it shows how powerful technology and smart execution can be. Their ability to outcompete giants like Goldman Sachs—and even pay interns more than the Fed Chair—highlights the immense value of top quantitative talent in today’s markets. 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 pla

Jane street capital smells like cathie wood. They seem to deploy the same strategy of deep convictions based on their homework done and emerged as victors. Of course, there are also complex strategies involved. 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 t

Jane Street’s story is legendary — a private prop-trading powerhouse built on math, data, and technology. It thrives by exploiting micro-inefficiencies and providing liquidity, using AI-driven algorithms far faster and smarter than human traders. As markets become more electronic, firms like Jane Street should keep an edge — but competition, regulation, and black-swan risk mean not every quant firm will survive. 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 fundame

Find out more here:Join me on Tiger Trade! Sign up with my invite and we both get USD 90*! You'll also unlock up to SGD 1,000 in welcome perks.

don't need complex algorithm. just need fundamental and technical analysis, common sense, psychology and discipline, and holding power. Sure win. Financial advisors address not required to get rich.

Thanks for sharing. I saw my portfolio which a week grown $1000 😅 small investment