Jim Simons has died
simonsfoundation.org
simonsfoundation.org
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.
I have a good base-case: GiveWell. So I'm content to dump everyone else on the slightest suspicion. I don't really care that much.
I find this kind of comment quite distasteful on someones death. Was he actively trying to destroy arXiv?
Check out Finite and Infinite Games by Carse.
Like seriously?
It's not as difficult as the stuff being published there.
Then people get hired and are into it and want to get paid (as people do). And costs go up. And slowly more people get added. And instead of looking for cheap ways to operate, they want to fund those people and give them 5% raises every year.
So they look for funders to cover “the bare minimum.”
So rather than figuring out how to operate efficiently, they look for benefactors.
I love arxiv and use it all the time. But why do they have employees? And what are their costs? And why not get it to the point of operating with volunteers.
I suppose someone can do that and set it up. Until then, I’ll just donate or applaud benefactors. And use scihub too I suppose. How much does that cost to run?
He was very serious about improving maths education and actually did alot.
Jim Discovered their channel, liked it and invited them to his New York Apartment for an interview. [1]
From that time forward, all Numberphile videos have "Simons Foundation" at the end listed as a sponsor.
[1]: Here is the video https://youtu.be/QNznD9hMEh0?si=SVnDx77dQNepMRJW
Making money is one thing, but circulating so much of it back through math and science is a great legacy.
giving it away
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.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-hedge-funds-are-top-perform...
But every succession is a risk. Every merger is a risk... ask Boeing.
However, some fraction of redistributors are willing to enrich themselves at the expense of others. These should never be allowed to make decisions affecting others. A founder should always look for people from the first group by looking at their past behavior and make sure those succeed him.
"Here are some additional sources that discuss the concept of an egregore and how it can be applied to understanding group dynamics and the evolution of organizations:
"The Anatomy of the Body of God" by Frater Achad (Charles Stansfeld Jones) - A detailed exposition on the occult concept of egregores from a ceremonial magic perspective.
"Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown - This book discusses egregores in the context of economic systems and the power of collective beliefs shaping institutions.
"The Egregore Effect" by Jack Willis - Explores egregores as self-reinforcing memetic constructs that shape group behavior.
"The Cult of Information" by Theodore Roszak - While not directly about egregores, it discusses how ideologies and worldviews can take on a life of their own within organizations.
"The Organizational Hologram" by David Bohm - Applies concepts from quantum physics to understanding the undivided wholeness of organizations
What is the source for the quotation in your post?
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.
We're talking about the philanthropy that Simmons led in mathematics and science through his foundation.
Now, whether this support will continue depends on the will of Jim as well as his family.
But I also think someone is at high level, a partner might be the only one who can look at things from above, seeing the big big picture.
Of course it could be the person doesn't care, but it could also be the person is busy, etc
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.
And I assume that's for normal people of her age and gender? She's probably far from normal.
[1] https://perimeterinstitute.ca/news/new-simons-foundation-sup...
Was it the content/aims of the conferences, or just that they were so ostentatiously luxurious?
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
“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).
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.
It's easy to make a few high margin dollars, hard to make a lot of high margin dollars.
They also got into some tax trouble with uncle sam and had to pay 7b in back taxes (https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-simons-robert-mercer-othe...)
According to industry rumors, RenTech is somewhere between $10-20bn AUM (assets under management, i.e. the capital used for trading), and the profit that they make, they can't reinvest, they have to take it out as profit.
I know literally zero about this stuff!
This is of course a completely theoretical proposition, because in reality you don't know what the "fair price" is. You don't even have probabilities, because those are also unobservable, you only see one version of "history".
In practice, what happens is that if you trade "too much", "shit goes wrong". Both of these things require empirical estimation and are easy to get wrong.
The most obvious is the market liquidity, which you can observe at e.g. BitStamp TradeView [1] - there's only so many orders at a given price, so the more you trade, the worse price you get (the average/marginal trade).
No professional of course trades like that, especially not HFTs, but similar problems happen at every scale - you're competing with other traders, they might have better information, there's limited amount of stock in the market, the edge/alpha/expected profit you can earn decays over time as the price moves, if you trade too much you move the market and inform other participants who can then trade against you, ...
I guess you will not be getting a job there
But in seriousness, when you become so big relative to the market, you become the market.
I guess the theoretical limit to how much money you could make in the market is "the sum of all volatility", but I wonder how realistically possible it would be to even dream of beating 62% yearly.
The returns of modern HFT market makers are even higher. With their unfair “business” advantages such as PFOF, privileged dark pool and block trade access, and military internet infrastructure.
Think 60%+, per year, at least. Over 10-20 years, of course.
They wouldn't hire me either!
The returns of a child's lemonade stand are even higher...
Market makers and lemonade stands are mostly about paying for labour (and ideas etc, but let's call that 'labour', too). Capital requirements are rather low. So taking all the profit and attributing it to capital returns tends to give you weird numbers.
Why does it matter? Returns are returns. Money in, money out.
After all, people compare HYSA bank interest with TreasuryDirect bond returns with equity ETFs like VTI and QQQ. Each with vastly different capital mechanics.
Good luck trying that with one of those very profitable market makers and funds: they don't want your capital; or at least they don't want it at the same price (= returns) that we are quoting here. Which suggests that those returns aren't attributable to that capital at all (even though for tax reasons they might structured it so that legally these are counted as capital returns, but that just obscures the underlying economic reality).
This is very similar to observing that a particular company pays a lot of money for some very simple job; but then we notice that the job is only available for the son of the CEO. We can conclude that the extra pay isn't really for that simple job.
Or when we notice that a government contractor officially charges 5000 dollars for a hammer. Unless you and me could rock up and steal market share by offering to sell hammers for 4000 dollars, it's very likely that the 5000 dollars aren't really for the hammer at all; but just some accounting shenanigans.
Successful quant stratégies tend to hit capacity limits...
Eg selling insurance can be seen as a zero sum game, but it's a genuinely useful product for people, even when the expected value for them is negative. It works, because utility is not strictly proportional to money.
Similarly, market making delivers liquidity-on-demand for a fee.
In practice, people take out insurance even for events that would not put them out of business.
Btw, if you are talking about 'value-generating enterprises', ie businesses as buyers of insurance, then your argument doesn't really work either, or at least not without caveats:
When a business suddenly has a large liability, and it goes bankrupt, all that happens is that the equity owners are wiped out and the creditors take over. The underlying business can and often does continue uninterrupted, and has approximately the same value as a going concern as before.
Also, being able to run as a going concern is of finite value to a business. If your business can take a 51% chance of either doubling in value or alternatively going bust, then that _might_ be a good gamble to take if your shareholders are well-diversified. For example, if index funds are your main shareholders.
Humans need considerable better odds before they consider such a gamble. But people do regularly put their life on the line in return for very finite benefits. Eg every time you leave the house, and drive a car. Or even more stark, any time people conveniently 'forget' to put their seatbelts on.
I am not saying that ALL insurances provide values. Like any other kind of trades, you can lose values if you make a bad decision. That does not make insurance inherently zero- or negative-sum.
> When a business suddenly has a large liability, and it goes bankrupt, all that happens is that the equity owners are wiped out and the creditors take over. The underlying business can and often does continue uninterrupted, and has approximately the same value as a going concern as before.
This assumes the original owner brings no value to the business. Even in that case, the disruption itself is harmful, not to mention the assumption that bankrupted business can restructure rather than closing down.
Closing down the business doesn't necessarily mean very much: all the machines, and workers and real estate and building still exist, whether the business closes or not.
One of the genious thing that rentech did was long out of the money bonds, and short newly issued bonds. Seems like such a simple strat, but when you crank up the leverage you can make alot of money.
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.
Basically, no.
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.
Google harasses anyone with a live linkedin profile.
Getting to an onsite interview is a different matter though.
I know 3 people at google, all senior, either SE or people managers.
None had brilliant academic records.
One took almost 10 years to finish his sociology adjacent undergrad.
He's the most "successful" and has been there for almost 15 years, 10 in the states.
The others have been there for like 5.
Make of this info what you wish...
None had impressive intelligence either.
Both of them only really cared more about work history and my ability to solve whiteboard problems. Pretty much all the interviews ended up "what's another clever way to use a hashmap?"
Obviously the number of people working on the super secret stuff is smaller, not to mentioned each project has a compartmentalized staff, but keeping secrets at this size is going to be a tough ask. They seem to do a pretty good job, but we know they’re not infallible at it. I imagine RenTech at 1/100th the size would have a vastly easier time.
Most organizations would have choked themselves on tens of thousands of bad hires long ago.
Combine that with how most the company spend all their time thinking about making money and that's probably why the company never succumbed to bloat
I also think they have sufficient career progression (in terms of problems solved and $$$ earned) that nobody feels the need to build a big team. Pure speculation though, I know nothing about RenTech except that the pay is... generous.
This is different from most orgs who can grow revenue through expansion of some sort, in which case the incentive often favors adding new employees. Not to mention the tendency for people in tech to be evaluated by how many people are in their org, further incentivizing adding headcount to signify your importance.
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.
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-...
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 :-)
I mentioned in the very comment that you're replying to that I was wrong.
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.
So do about 200 other funds world wide. Their leverage and sell side pricing isn't what makes them successful, as most other large funds trade as much as them and get atleast the same pricing as they do.
Leverage makes a huge difference. If a strategy nets on average 0.1% a day and if RenTec can trade at 2x more leverage than their counterparts, they will post 60% pa vs 30% pa.
Economists are stupid or wrong or bought. Or all of the above.
Friedman? Come back when you’ve got someone better.
They have no size or leverage advantage that 200 other funds in the US don't have.
Certainly worth a listen https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/renaissance-technologies
They also did an interview with Charlie Munger right before he died. They have good...timing, for sure.
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.
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
> Since 1990, Renaissance Technologies has contributed $59,081,152 to federal campaigns and since 2001, and has spent $3,730,000 on lobbying as of 2016.
Let's not kid ourselves, people at this level of wealth and power can very much make their voice heard by the people who make policy. He's definitely not the only one in this position, but to frame him as a "better casino player" who is "not really dictating anything" is naive at best.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/the-reclusive-...
I am under the impression this might have been a bad look for RenTech hence Mercer leaving the firm.
Rentech is a bunch of gamblers gambling and spending their money no different to any other rich people.
He was intellectual honest and technically exceptional.
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Solved-Market-Revolution/dp/0...
I’d argue this cross exchange arbitrage does still provide some value by keeping prices of securities across exchanges/the world in sync, despite being quite unfair and taking value from those putting in large orders.
Liquidity provided by algo market makers is also a service to market participants because they take risk to ensure there is always someone to buy or sell - this reduces volatility and risk for everyone.
Algo trading is also required for keeping ETFs in line their benchmarks, which is an entirely separate subject you could fill a book with.
So no, all algo trading is not the same thing, there are valid and productive uses of code rather than people shouting across a pit or running slips up and down roads to keep capital flowing through markets efficiently.
Finding anomalies that develop into a mean reversion trading algorithm is actually one of the more fulfilling things I've done. Only a few other things in my life have matched the amount of grit and brainpower I've had to use to get something like this accomplished. A team or company stretching the limits of statistics and computer science to do the same seems like something worthwhile to me.
Now we can get into some areas that may be borderline unethical, like certain types of front running, but a blanketed statement isn't a fair thing to cast on the industry as a whole.
Being promised millions is a lot of incentive.
In fact, standard economic theory would say that it is better to pay people more instead doing anything else.
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
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?
Ok, I guess you're right. A smart guy who completes a hard math class and is even also doing coding can probably do anything he wants.
Maybe a black bar on top of HN?
He was a real cool guy.
But probably smoking
(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...
Atleast that's my primary motivation for it.
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.
Jokes aside, really sad to hear this. The guy did a lot of good with the money from what I understand
Insider trading exists but the amount of secrecy to make that theory a reality would be unobtainable.
Why would they involve their spouse? If it was illegal for them to trade but their spouse made a trade it would be trivial for the SEC to trace it back to intel they learned.
You are right that enforcement is weak, but that is not because it is legal. The notion that members of Congress can legally trade on knowledge derived from or used in the performance of their duties has not been true for over a decade at this point.
No congress can trade on insider information full stop
https://blogs.luc.edu/compliance/?p=4459
> Simply put, insider trading is illegal. But, if you are a member of Congress, there is a loophole. Members of Congress and their families are allowed to trade stocks with almost no limitations. There isn’t a limit on lawmakers trading stocks based on classified information nor is there oversight regarding the trades that lawmakers are allowed to make based on other information they are privy to as part of their job. This is in glaring contrast to the strict insider trading laws that ban the same kind of behavior of everyone else in the county.
Beating the S&P 500 is difficult and there are now zero fee funds to mimic it.
The cause? Someone, somewhere in their financial product chain was not being faithful about the volatility of the asset they were basing their whole model on so when the market went tits up they did to.
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.
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.
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"