Aggregator
California becomes playground for the wealthy as families flee
Lakers vs. Rockets: TV Channel, Start Time, Where To Watch Rockets-Lakers Game 3 For Free
Stop pro-cat-inating and get the 8 most pawsome insurance plans for 2026
Jane Street Made A Record $40 Billion In Trading Revenue Last Year, More Than All Wall Street Banks
The 10am slam in bitcoin, which we documented virtually every days since 2024 may have ended once Jane Street got busted for insider trading in the Terraform collapse, but that doesn't mean that the Wall Street HFT trading giant slowed down. On the contrary: according to Bloomberg, Jane Street Group reeled in a Wall Street record $39.6 billion of trading revenue last year, more than any Wall Street bank.
According to the report, the firm beat out all global investment banks after reaping $15.5 billion in the year’s final quarter, and with only 3,500 employees, it beat nearest rival JPMorgan by 11% during the year. The company's adjusted ETBIDA for the full year was a stunning $31.2 billion.
While Jane Street’s profits were lifted by surging valuations of its stakes in privately held companies, the firm’s main business matching buyers and sellers across assets thrived on bouts of market volatility. The new annual record - which includes gains on long-term investments - shows "how the balance of power has shifted in one of the most lucrative arenas of global finance."
Jane Street’s "appetite for risk" helped the firm generate more than $11 million of revenue on average per employee.
Jane rivals Citadel Securities and Hudson River Trading also notched records of their own last year, pulling in a more modest $12.2 billion and $12.3 billion respectively, Bloomberg has previously reported. They and Jane Street have filled voids left by banks more focused on higher-returning businesses. JPMorgan posted $35.8 billion of trading revenue in 2025 and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. $31.1 billion.
For banks, Jane's ascent - marked with various regulatory mishaps - is a manifestation of the fears they have long harbored about someday losing ground to upstarts when US regulators imposed prop trading rules which sought to curb betting by deposit-taking institutions after the 2008 financial crisis. Nonbanks don’t face the same strictures on capital as those too-big-to-fail lenders, and they have capitalized aggressively.
Starting in 2000, Jane Street cut its teeth trading American depository receipts, and later specialized in exchange-traded funds. It has since expanded across asset classes around the world, often profiting from mismatches in prices. At its core an HFT firm, Jane Street developed technology for handling thousands of trades within seconds like other high-frequency firms, but it also reaps gains by holding some positions for hours, days and even weeks.
While it has kept a remarkable low profile, its recent public appearances have been less than laudatory: The company's record haul is confirmation that Jane Street, long known for its secrecy, was able to keep growing after getting thrust into the spotlight in mid-2025 when authorities in India accused of manipulating markets while running what had once been one of the firm’s most lucrative trading strategies. Jane Street has denied those allegations and is fighting them in court. In February, Jane Street was sued by the bankrupt Terraform Labs estate, accusing it of engaging in insider trading that precipitated the $40 billion crash of cryptocurrencies associated with Terraform; this week the HFT firm also urged a judge to throw out that lawsuit.
Jane Street’s stake in rising artificial intelligence venture Anthropic PBC was the driving force behind $830 million of third-quarter gains from bets on private firms. That September, Anthropic boasted a valuation of $183 billion. Since then, the maker of the popular Claude artificial-intelligence model and developer of the much-feared Mythos has raised money at a $380 billion valuation and later received offers from investors for a round of funding that could value it at about $800 billion or higher.
Jane Street is also in funding talks for cloud-computing startup Fluidstack Ltd. and recently invested an additional $1 billion in AI cloud services provider and CoreWeave Inc.
Tyler Durden Fri, 04/24/2026 - 12:22Sean McVay’s subdued draft reaction decoded by NFL insider: ‘The secrecy’
Barrie Tomlinson, editor of famed British comic Roy of the Rover, dies at 88
Aldi plans for eye-popping overhaul of its US stores
Activists erupt as rescued ducks are sold off like cheap chicken
20+ best tech gifts Mom will love this Mother’s Day
Tattooed engagement rings take off with cost-conscious young couples — as pricey diamonds lose their sparkle
Archaeologists make ‘remarkable’ discovery from bloodiest battle in Scottish history after nearly 280 years
Cava's Lone Bear Analyst Flags Weak Foot Traffic After Stock's 123% Surge
Northcoast Research analyst Jim Sanderson has emerged as Cava Group's lone bear on Wall Street, warning in an interview with Bloomberg that the stock's 123% rally has gone too far.
"The risk profile, given what I see macroeconomically, is unnerving," Sanderson said in the interview. He noted that the recent surge in the stock has made it very expensive to own.
He continued, "The red flag for me was seeing that traffic at some of the mature locations seemed to be very underwhelming, and in many instances, trending negative for several months relative to the peer group."
Cava is the Mediterranean version of Chipotle and builds customers' meals around greens, rice, or pita, then adds proteins, spreads, toppings, and sauces. As with any fast-casual restaurant chain, there is typically a period of consumer hype. And as we all know, on a long enough timeline, nothing lasts forever.
Cava stock is trading at a hefty premium to both the broader market and industry peers. It trades at 159 times forward earnings, compared with Chipotle at about 28 times and the S&P 500 Index at nearly 21 times.
Bloomberg data show Sanderson is the only bear, as Wall Street analysts are largely bullish. There are 17 "Buys" on the stock, along with 13 "Holds." The average 12-month price target is $88.95.
Sanderson's interview follows a note earlier this week from Goldman analyst Christine Cho, who said fast food's "bang for the buck" promotions are working while casual dining's appeal is sliding.
If Sanderson's data on underwhelming foot traffic at certain mature locations is accurate, it may suggest that management will eventually need to deploy discounts or promotions to re-energize consumer interest in Mediterranean-style bowls, salads, and pitas. Otherwise, Cava's Wall Street growth story could seriously lose momentum.
Tyler Durden Fri, 04/24/2026 - 12:052026 NFL Draft Day 2 odds: Who 49ers, Cardinals, Bills are expected to pick
Budget airline passenger hoped to avoid paying for a return flight — by hiding in the overhead bin
Kalshi promo code NYPMAX: Trade $10, get $10 for Yankees vs. Astros
Where Was ‘APEX’ Filmed? Discover the ‘APEX’ Filming Locations for Charlize Theron’s Netflix Movie
‘Marshals’ Exclusive Clip: Kayce Dutton Recruits Riley Green’s Garrett To Get The Kidnapped Cruz Back
Appeals Court Backs Ruling That Denver Must Pay $14 Million To George Floyd Protesters
Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld a jury’s verdict that ordered the City and County of Denver to pay 12 George Floyd protesters $14 million for “unconstitutional” use of force during 2020 rallies.
Police officers walk through a cloud of tear gas as they try to disperse people protesting against the death of George Floyd in front of the Colorado State Capitol, in Denver, Colo., on May 30, 2020, amid nationwide protests and riots. Michael Ciaglo/Getty ImagesThe three-judge panel explained their decisions in a pair of rulings published on April 21.
The court agreed that the Colorado city was liable for the unconstitutional force that officers used against the 12 protesters between May 28 and June 2.
Court documents showed the Denver Police Department “exhausted its supply of 30,000 pepper balls and had to restock” after the first day of protests and did not require officers to activate their body cameras.
The Denver Police Department defended its officers, suggesting they “acted reasonably in response to the unprecedented circumstances they encountered” by “violent and destructive” crowds.
“We reject Denver’s arguments and uphold the jury’s verdict,” the judges ruled.
“We do so based specifically on the jury’s finding that Denver inadequately trained its officers.”
The Denver Police Department declined to comment on Tuesday’s decisions by the Colorado-based appeals court.
The department has since implemented a series of changes, based on what it learned from being one of the cities that was involved in the high-profile police brutality protests that spread across the nation.
The department’s changes include how it documents the use-of-force during protests, how it tracks “less-than-lethal munitions,” and how body cameras and officer identification is used.
In a separate, but related, decision, the court rejected an appeal by Denver Police Department officer Jonathan Christian who argued he should not have been found liable for violating the Fourth Amendment right of plaintiff Elisabeth Epps at the height of the police brutality protests.
Christian shot her with a pepperball in the leg as she was peacefully protesting in Denver on May, 29 2020.
Christian’s lawyers argued the officer was entitled to qualified immunity, which is meant to shield government officials from being sued for doing their duties, according to Cornell Law School.
The judges agreed with the jury, finding that Christian did use “using unreasonable force” against Epps when he shot her, “without warning, with a pepperball as she walked by herself [and not in a group], unarmed and non-threatening, across the street toward the capitol.”
Court documents added that any crime she was committing, such as jaywalking, was minor and did not warrant his actions to shoot a pepperball at her.
The judges found that Christian did act with an “evil motive or intent” or with “reckless or callous indifference” to her “federally protected rights.”
Tyler Durden Fri, 04/24/2026 - 11:45