Algorithmic Trading Dominance in Emerging Markets: Jane Street's Challenge to Goldman Sachs in Taiwan

In 2025, the algorithmic trading landscape in emerging markets has become a high-stakes arena for competition between legacy institutions and nimble, tech-driven firms. Jane Street, the U.S.-based proprietary trading giant, has emerged as a formidable challenger to traditional powerhouses like Goldman Sachs, particularly in regions such as Taiwan. By leveraging advanced algorithms, high-frequency trading (HFT), and a hyper-focused market-making strategy, Jane Street has not only captured significant market share but also redefined the rules of engagement in capital markets.

Jane Street's Expansion: A Tech-Driven Disruption

Jane Street's rise in 2025 is underpinned by its ability to exploit technological asymmetries. The firm's net trading revenue nearly doubled in 2024 to $20.5 billion, with first-quarter 2025 revenues reaching $7.2 billion—a testament to its dominance in volatile markets, according to a Disruption Banking analysis. In North America, Jane Street accounted for 10.4% of equities market activity in 2023 and 24% of primary market activity in U.S.-listed ETFs, as that Disruption Banking analysis also found. These figures underscore its role as a liquidity provider and its strategic advantage in fast-growing asset classes like bond ETFs.

In Taiwan, while specific market share data is not publicly available, Jane Street's global expansion patterns suggest a similar trajectory. The firm's in-house technology, including real-time data processing and machine learning-driven predictive models, is detailed in a Market Muse profile, which explains how Jane Street executes trades at nanosecond speeds, outpacing traditional banks. For instance, Jane Street's operations in Hong Kong and China—where it has been active in yuan-denominated shares—serve as a proxy for its potential influence in Taiwan's capital markets, according to an eFinancialCareers report.

Goldman Sachs: A Legacy Firm in a Digital Age

Goldman Sachs, a stalwart of Wall Street, faces a dual challenge: adapting to the algorithmic arms race while navigating regulatory constraints. Its trading revenue grew by 13% in 2024 to $26.6 billion, the Disruption Banking analysis noted, but this pales against Jane Street's explosive growth. The bank's Goldman Sachs Electronic Trading (GSET) platform, which integrates AI and low-latency infrastructure like Atlas, has been a key differentiator, according to a MarketClutch profile. However, its broader business model—spanning investment banking, asset management, and advisory services—diverts resources from pure-play algorithmic trading.

In Taiwan, Goldman Sachs' presence is likely constrained by its traditional client-centric approach. Unlike Jane Street, which prioritizes proprietary trading and market-making, Goldman Sachs focuses on executing large institutional orders with minimal market impact, as the Market Muse profile observed. This strategy, while effective in stable markets, struggles to compete with the speed and scale of algorithmic firms in fragmented or volatile environments.

Regulatory Risks and Strategic Implications

Jane Street's aggressive strategies, however, are not without risks. The firm's 2025 regulatory battle in India—where the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) accused it of manipulating the Bank Nifty index—highlights the vulnerabilities of algorithmic trading in markets with liquidity imbalances, according to an FTI Consulting analysis. By executing large directional trades on expiry days, Jane Street allegedly distorted settlement prices to benefit its options positions, earning $565 million in profits, the analysis said. While the firm denied wrongdoing, the case signals a global regulatory shift toward stricter oversight of HFT strategies.

For Taiwan, a market with growing derivatives activity and relatively shallow underlying liquidity, this precedent is critical. Regulators may adopt measures such as enhanced surveillance protocols or tighter margin requirements to prevent similar manipulations, according to an Edgar Index article. Jane Street's ability to navigate these challenges will determine its long-term success in the region.

The Future of Algorithmic Trading in Emerging Markets

The Jane Street–Goldman Sachs rivalry in Taiwan reflects a broader trend: the erosion of traditional banking dominance in favor of algorithmic firms. Jane Street's 69% operating profit margin in 2024, highlighted in the eFinancialCareers report, far exceeds that of legacy banks and demonstrates the financial viability of its model. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs' 11% annual trading revenue growth, as the Disruption Banking analysis observed, underscores the difficulty of competing with firms that prioritize speed and technology.

For investors, the implications are clear. Emerging markets like Taiwan are becoming battlegrounds for algorithmic supremacy, with Jane Street's expansion posing a direct threat to legacy institutions. However, the regulatory scrutiny faced by Jane Street in India serves as a cautionary tale: in markets where liquidity imbalances persist, even the most sophisticated algorithms may face pushback from regulators.

Conclusion

Jane Street's expansion into Taiwan and other emerging markets in 2025 has redefined the algorithmic trading landscape. By combining cutting-edge technology with a relentless focus on liquidity provision, the firm has outpaced traditional players like Goldman Sachs. Yet, as the Indian case illustrates, the path to dominance is fraught with regulatory risks. For investors, the key lies in balancing the opportunities of algorithmic innovation with the uncertainties of evolving market governance.