> Liquidity provides a great service, if we need long market hours.
If Jane Street is so critical to the normal functioning of markets that their significance between "exists" and "don't exist" is a major change in liqudity, then they are a systemic risk.
They probably don't want to be viewed as a systemic risk to the financial system.
But when you are siphoning this much money out of the financial systems worldwide (to the point your employee equity looks to be going almost logarithmic), how much further can this go until "providing liquidity!" isn't good enough any more?
That's been the go-to answer since forever, anytime anyone questions what value is being added to the economy.
If Jane Street is so critical to the normal functioning of markets that their significance between "exists" and "don't exist" is a major change in liqudity, then they are a systemic risk.
They probably don't want to be viewed as a systemic risk to the financial system.
But when you are siphoning this much money out of the financial systems worldwide (to the point your employee equity looks to be going almost logarithmic), how much further can this go until "providing liquidity!" isn't good enough any more?
That's been the go-to answer since forever, anytime anyone questions what value is being added to the economy.