Besides the conferences, there is the SCGP at Stony Brook, the Simons Center in Manhattan, whatever MSRI is called now, AMS-Simons travel grants, tons of money for the arXiv, the Magma license deal... and that's just the stuff that I've benefited from personally. I know there's more, Simons Collaboration grants and probably other things I've never heard of. He was very good to us all.
We've always joked that Phds in geometry-adjacent fields have to have one of the highest average incomes of any degree, probably at least $1 million a year. Simons making $3 billion, the rest of us making 90k apiece.
Making money is one thing, but circulating so much of it back through math and science is a great legacy.
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.
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....
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.
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.
He was very serious about improving maths education and actually did alot.
[1] https://perimeterinstitute.ca/news/new-simons-foundation-sup...
the simons foundation will have influence on machine learning and medicine for many decades to come though and will hopefully be a force of positivity in these fields
Was it the content/aims of the conferences, or just that they were so ostentatiously luxurious?
I find this kind of comment quite distasteful on someones death. Was he actively trying to destroy arXiv?
Like seriously?
It's not as difficult as the stuff being published there.
“Be guided by beauty. I really mean that. Pretty much everything I’ve done has had an aesthetic component, at least to me. Now you might think ‘well, building a company that’s trading bonds, what’s so aesthetic about that?’ But, what’s aesthetic about it is doing it right. Getting the right kind of people, and approaching the problem, and doing it right […] it’s a beautiful thing to do something right.”
- Jim Simons
With the current status of research it's clear humans have a very problematic relation with what most people think the term means.
A new word should really be crafted to disambiguate.
I had previously thought of HFT and Quant as a bunch of "finance bros", and kind of dismissed it as "not real CS" [1]. Reading about RenTech and Jim Simons made realize that there's actually a lot of really cool and interesting math and CS that goes into this stuff.
Jim Simons being a respected mathematician who just decided to change trajectories has always fascinated me, and it's sad that he's gone.
[1] I don't believe this anymore and I feel dumb for thinking it in the first place.
Effectively an outsider in finance who gathered a bunch of other outsiders (aka big mathematicians), and decided to start a hedge fund that takes zero interest in the actual companies and trades solely on math. Which makes sense, since none of the main people involved in its creation had any corporate or finance experience, but tons of math experience and knowledge.
This is oversimplifying it like crazy, but I recommend anyone to anyone with even a passing curiosity for this look up the details (or read “The Man Who Solved The Market”, which is documenting the beginnings and growth of RenTech, as well as that of Simons; very enjoyable read).
Simmons was one of the first to realize the advantage of collecting and analyzing vast sums of data to identify patterns in financial markets. They were digitizing magnetic tapes and collecting more data than they could even process given technical limitations of the time.
It's kind of inspiring. I don't know a ton about finance or trading algorithms, but I know a fair bit (I think) about math and CS, and because of RenTech I've formulating my own trading strategies (just paper trades). Thus far all I've been able to do is lose all my pretend money by trying to play options, but it's still fun to try.
Will I be successful and make billions? Almost certainly not, but it's an excuse to play with different types of math that I don't play with very often, but RenTech proved that you can beat the market by taking advantage mathematics.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43889703
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/25733505
And some of the myths you have may be dispelled :-)
The PhD I'm in is from a more prestigious university [1], and I guess FAANG experience isn't enough to snag an interview with them.
[1] University of York, though I don't know if that counts as "top tier" either.
Also just reading about Jim Simons' being an already-very-successful mathematician dropping everything to start a hedge fund and ending up extremely successful at the end of it was a bit of a wakeup call. Clearly this was an extremely smart dude (he was the chair of the math department at Stony Brook!), and so if this is interesting enough for someone like him, then it's probably something worth looking into.
I read through a book on basic trading strategies and I thought it was pretty interesting [3], though I've gone in a pretty different direction from what they taught.
[1] https://youtu.be/A5w-dEgIU1M
[2] https://youtu.be/xkbdZb0UPac
[3] https://www.amazon.com/Machine-Learning-Algorithmic-Trading-...
I mentioned in the very comment that you're replying to that I was wrong.
They're different groups, I respect them now and feel dumb for not respecting them before.
It changed at some point during the '80s, probably to no little degree thanks to Renaissance.
But also what a life. He could have quit 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago and been in the history books. What’s now called Chern-Simons is a monumental result in topology that IIRC dates to the mid-60s.
Then he empirically disproved the strong-form EMH, a result in economics of which I’m unaware of any peer in its conclusiveness.
Then he built SUNY Stoneybrook into possibly the best lab for topology and differential geometry in the world.
Geometer, topologist, cryptographer, outspoken and fearless critic of needless war, trader, teacher, monument.
Legend. May he rest.
Not clear as we do not really know exactly how RenTech works. It is believed that there are substantial tax loopholes that were taken advantage of - which would go a long way (not all the way) to explaining the incredible performance of his fund.
Simons was returning 25-50% on 8BN AUM at Medallion every year with one or two exceptions every year for 30 years.
Even the hedge funds we let openly operate with black edge in plain sight can rarely do that for 3-5 years.
It’s obviously debatable unless they open the books, but it’s pretty much common knowledge which funds are bending the rules (flagrantly violating securities law), and I’m unaware that Medallion was anything other than just there first.
Certainly worth a listen https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/renaissance-technologies
I'd recommend just reading the book instead. I'd also recommend Derman's My Life as a Quant [1] for a broader take at other firms around the same time that Renaissance was taking off.
I will say, I thought their hypothesis on why the fees are so high was very astute. Can't know if it's true or not, but it feels very compelling.
They also did an interview with Charlie Munger right before he died. They have good...timing, for sure.
Jim Simons did fundamental research in topology; his work in mathematics, cryptography, and topological quantum field theory.
Beyond this, he pressed for higher quality public education in math and encouraging training and presige for math teachers.
Simons also funded Quanta magazine: https://www.quantamagazine.org/about/
His Wikipedia page is interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Simons_(mathematician)
Interesting Numberphile interview with Jim, if you're not aware who he is
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Solved-Market-Revolution/dp/0...
The company is an interesting example of Conway's Law[1]. I learned from the recent Acquired episode on RenTech[2] that in contrast to how most other firms work, there is only a single model within RenTech that everyone contributes to. You don't have a bunch of small teams working in silos building specialized or competing models. As a result, every new development gets shared with the whole group.
1. [O]rganizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.
2. https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/renaissance-technologies
In fact, standard economic theory would say that it is better to pay people more instead doing anything else.
Specifically, I hope the Simons Foundation continues to fund Math for America. My wife participated in this program, and it helped her become an excellent educator while also _significantly_ helping her financially.
RIP
Simons Foundation Co-Founder, Mathematician and Investor Jim Simons Dies at 86 By Thomas Sumner May 10, 2024 Simons Foundation co-founder and chair emeritus Jim Simons. © Béatrice de Géa
It is with great sadness that the Simons Foundation announces the death of its co-founder and chair emeritus, James Harris Simons, on May 10, 2024, at the age of 86, in New York City.
Jim (as he preferred to be called) was an award-winning mathematician, a legend in quantitative investing, and an inspired and generous philanthropist.
Together with his wife, Simons Foundation chair Marilyn Simons, he gave billions of dollars to hundreds of philanthropic causes, particularly those supporting math and science research and education. In 1994, they established the Simons Foundation, which supports scientists and organizations worldwide in advancing the frontiers of research in mathematics and the basic sciences.
Jim was active in the work of the Simons Foundation until the end of his life, and his curiosity and lifelong passion for math and basic science were an inspiration to those around him. He was determined to make a meaningful difference in the level of support that mathematics and basic sciences received in the United States, notably by sponsoring projects that were important but unlikely to find funding elsewhere.
Over its 30-year history, the Simons Foundation’s work has led to breakthroughs in our understanding of autism, the origins of the universe, cellular biology and computational science. Jim and Marilyn’s giving continues to support the next generation of mathematicians and scientists at schools and universities in New York City and around the world.
Jim frequently said that he went through three phases in his professional life: mathematician, investor and philanthropist. He previously chaired the math department at Stony Brook University in New York, and his mathematical breakthroughs during that time are now instrumental to fields such as string theory, topology and condensed matter physics.
In 1978, Jim founded what would become Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund that pioneered quantitative trading and became one of the most profitable investment firms in history. He then turned his focus to making a difference in the world through the Simons Foundation, Simons Foundation International, Math for America and other philanthropic efforts.
“Jim was an exceptional leader who did transformative work in mathematics and developed a world-leading investment company,” says Simons Foundation president David Spergel. “Together with Marilyn Simons, the current Simons Foundation board chair, Jim created an organization that has already had enormous impact in mathematics, basic science and our understanding of autism. The Simons Foundation, an in-perpetuity foundation, will carry their vision for philanthropy into the future.”
Jim Simons is survived by his wife, three children, five grandchildren, a great-grandchild, and countless colleagues, friends and family who fondly recall his genuine curiosity and quick wit.
We know that many people have stories, messages and memories they would like to share about Jim. Please send them to observing@simonsfoundation.org.
Information on memorial services and other events honoring Jim’s life and legacy will be posted on the Simons Foundation website.
I really hope he finnished it, I was looking forward to reading it.
While I wish that our country didn't have to rely on billionaires spearheading initiatives, which often goes the wrong way, Simons was absolutely an example of one of the good ones.
"SFARI’s mission is to improve the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders by funding innovative research of the highest quality and relevance."
SFARI in turn funds a lot of foundational neurological and rare disease research, since autism is such a common phenotype.
https://twitter.com/quant_arb/status/1631052354408665091?lan...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/18/jim-simons-the...
He will be remember for lifetimes
Anyone knows the cause of death?
What actually is the criteria? Or it just depends on how @dang is feeling.
Jim is a hero in science, data, computing and finance. What else did he need to do?
Maybe a black bar on top of HN?
He was a real cool guy.
But probably smoking
If the world's production capacity is a giant muscle, finance is like the brain. Spending 20 watts of brainpower to move a 100 watt muscle in the right way can be hugely effective, far more effective than a 1000 watt muscle with 5 watts of brain.
This is really what finance does. They improve the movement of the muscle.
(Not an economist, and I don't pretend to know.)
I'm just wondering out loud if that's a meaningful use of such a large percentage of top talent. I'm not faulting anyone who chooses to go that way. There's a lot of money to be made. To me, it seems unfortunate that we don't better incentive pursuit of science/engineering.
This paper breaks down how many people from top schools (MIT, Yale, Harvard) get jobs in finance. It's between 20-30% of the graduating class every year.
https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%2520Files/16-067_3d306ef...
Jokes aside, really sad to hear this. The guy did a lot of good with the money from what I understand
It's not hard to predict the market. It's hard to beat the market.
I can very easily predict that Tesla will continue to lose share price (as one example). I cannot use that prediction to make money.
As they say, "It's Priced In"
There are tons of strategies out there that does not involve insider trading or fraud. One such example is simply shorting Bitcoin at the market open whilst going long QQQ. This has paid a lot , like today , in which Bitcoin is down 3% and QQQ down a tad. There are people running this strategy now which despite being public knowledge, is still profitable. Shorting bitcoin during market hours, in fact, realizes all of the downside of Bitcoin without the upside from shorting it.
There are other strategies like this. now imagine you assemble the greatest minds in the world and tons of computing power to find many strategies and run them 24-7.
Beating the S&P 500 is difficult and there are now zero fee funds to mimic it.
Insider trading exists but the amount of secrecy to make that theory a reality would be unobtainable.
But people don’t need be extremely smart to get wealthy. Just executing well on a simple idea can make one extremely wealthy, and there’s considerable luck involved. There’s also the need to have persuasive skills, connections, charisma, and all that to convince people to follow their vision, aka Steve Jobs and Elon Musk.
As intelligent as Jim Simons? Almost certainly not.
