Had a Jane Street interview in 2013 that still bothers me.
It was my 6th round. Final interview. The guy walks in carrying no laptop, no notebook, just a cold brew and what I later realized was a single IKEA tea candle.
He writes on the whiteboard:
food: $200
rent: $800
utilities: $150
candles: $3,600
family: dying
Then he turns around and says, “Optimize.”
I laughed because I thought it was a culture-fit bit. He did not laugh.
So I said, “Well, obviously you spend less on candles.”
He says, “Assume candles are non-discretionary.”
Okay.
I start building a model. Basic constraint satisfaction. Family survival as a soft penalty. Candles as a state variable. Maybe there’s an arbitrage where you buy wholesale paraffin and convert the $3,600 line item into inventory.
He stops me.
“You’re thinking like a consultant.”
That’s when I knew I was in trouble.
He says, “Give me a bid-ask on family dying.”
I say, “What?”
He says, “You’re long candles, short family. Where do you make markets?”
I try to recover. I say the real issue is liquidity: rent and utilities are fixed, food is elastic, candles are emotionally inelastic. Therefore the optimal strategy is to securitize future candle enjoyment and borrow against it.
He nods for the first time.
Then he asks, “What time do you sell the candles?”
I say, “Whenever the market is liquid?”
He says, “Be more specific.”
I say, “Uh… 10 a.m. Eastern?”
For the first time, he smiles.
He goes, “Every day?”
I say, “Every day.”
He says, “In size?”
I say, “In size.”
He says, “And what do we call that?”
I say, “Market manipulation?”
The room gets very quiet.
He looks disappointed and writes something down.
“No. We call it providing liquidity to candle ETFs during the U.S. cash open.”
I try to save it. “Right. Of course. The family isn’t dying because we underfunded them. They’re just experiencing temporary price discovery.”
He nods again.
Then he points back at the board.
I had missed it. The utility bill was $150, but candles provide light. You can zero out utilities.
I update the budget:
food: $200
rent: $800
utilities: $0
candles: $3,750
family: still dying, but now in a more capital-efficient way
He says, “How confident are you?”
I say, “0.95.”
He smiles and circles candles.
“0.95 huh?”
Then he asks me to estimate how many leveraged longs get liquidated if we dump $3,750 of candles at 10:00:01 every morning for 90 consecutive trading days.
Needless to say I did not get the offer.
@meadwaj@toontoon999@w1llthemarshal Thanks for being condescending. The indemnity clause has **nothing** to with commercial banks. I'm referring to payments from HMT to BOE's APF to cover QE bond losses (which one way or another are tax-payer funded). This has absolutely nothing to do with interest on reserves.
@meadwaj@toontoon999@w1llthemarshal A wealth tax is literally at the centre of Green econ policy, it's all I hear ZP talk about. Unless it fundamentally alters the growth outlook, being a good idea is not enough, is it? Scrap the BOE indemnity payments and save ~£20bn pa. Same result and no one pays a penny more.
@meadwaj@toontoon999@w1llthemarshal That would raise around ~£20bn here (best case, ignoring initial ramp up costs) -- not a trivial amount but far from a solution to our problems, i.e. a deficit of ~£140bn. I'm not fundamentally against taxing the 0.01% but you're focusing on the wrong thing.
@meadwaj@toontoon999@w1llthemarshal And Switzerland is structurally COMPLETELY different to the UK, it doesn't make sense to compare the two. The main issue that the UK has is a bloated welfare state. Unless you significantly cut wasteful spending, a wealth tax is not going to make ANY difference.
@meadwaj@toontoon999@w1llthemarshal Spain generated merely $670mn in 2023 from a wealth tax, Norway lost around $590mn in 2022 then made around $3bn in 2023. What are you gonna do with those amounts? Fund half a day of NHS spend?