Scribd
Upload
42 views13 pages

Stock Market Prices Do Not Follow Random Walks: Evidence From A Simple Specification Test

The document presents evidence that stock market prices do not follow random walks. It describes the history and concept of the random walk theory and tests the theory using variance estimators derived from stock market return data sampled at different frequencies. The results strongly reject the random walk hypothesis for a variety of stock market indexes and portfolios over the sample period from 1962 to 1985.

Uploaded by

farhan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views13 pages

Stock Market Prices Do Not Follow Random Walks: Evidence From A Simple Specification Test

The document presents evidence that stock market prices do not follow random walks. It describes the history and concept of the random walk theory and tests the theory using variance estimators derived from stock market return data sampled at different frequencies. The results strongly reject the random walk hypothesis for a variety of stock market indexes and portfolios over the sample period from 1962 to 1985.

Uploaded by

farhan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 13

Stock Market Prices Do Not Follow Random Walks:

Evidence from a Simple Specification Test

Presented By:
Shahid Manzoor Shah
Title: Stock Market Prices Do Not Follow Random Walks: Evidence
from a Simple Specification Test

Author
Andrew W. Lo
A Craig MacKinlay
Published by Oxford university publisher in 2012
Random walk Hypothesis theory
The random walk theory suggests that changes in stock prices have the
same distribution and are independent of each other, therefore, the
past movement or trend of a stock price or market cannot be used to
predict its future movement. In short, this is the idea that stocks take a
random and unpredictable path
History
The concept can be traced to French broker Jules Regnault who
published a book in 1863, and then to French mathematician Louis
Bachelier whose Ph.D. dissertation titled "The Theory of Speculation"
(1900) included some remarkable insights and commentary. The same
ideas were later developed by MIT Sloan School of
Management professor Paul Cootner in his 1964 book The Random
Character of Stock Market Prices. The term was popularized by the
1973 book, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, by Burton Malkiel, a
Professor of Economics at Princeton University, and was used earlier
in Eugene Fama's 1965 article "Random Walks In Stock Market Prices".
The theory that stock prices move randomly was earlier proposed
by Maurice Kendall in his 1953 paper, The Analysis of Economic Time
Series.
Abstract
In this article Researcher test the random walk hypothesis for weekly
stock market returns by comparing variance estimators derived from
data sampled at different frequencies. The random walk model is
strongly rejected for the entire sample period (1962- 1985) and for all
superiors for a variety of aggregate returns indexes and size-sorted
portfolios. Although the rejections are due largely to the behavior of
small stocks, they cannot be attributed completely to the effects of
infrequent trading or time-varying volatilities. Moreover, the
rejection of the random walk for weekly returns does not support a
mean-reverting model of asset prices.
Introduction
Since Keynes's (1936) now famous pronouncement that most investors'
decisions "can only be taken as a result of animal spirits of a spontaneous
urge to action rather than inaction, and not as the outcome of a weighted
average of benefits multiplied by quantitative probabilities," a great deal of
research has been devoted to examining the efficiency of stock market
price formation.
In Fama's (1970) survey, the vast majority of those studies were unable to
reject the "efficient markets" hypothesis for common stocks. Although
several seemingly anomalous departures from market efficiency have been
well documented,' many financial economists would agree with Jensen's
(1978a) belief that "there is no other proposition in economics which has
more solid empirical evidence supporting it than the Efficient Markets
Hypothesis."
Methodology
In this article the researcher provide further evidence that stock
prices do not follow random walks by using a simple specification test
based on variance estimators.
In this study researcher use specification test for both homoscedastic
and heteroscedastic random walks.
The Specification Test
Denote by Pt the stock price at time t and define Xt In Pt as the log-
price process. Our maintained hypothesis is given by the recursive
relation of
Xt = μ + X t-1+ ε t
where μ is an arbitrary drift parameter and εt is the random
disturbance term.
Homoscedastic increments
This study begin with the null hypothesis H0 that the disturbances εt
are independently and identically distributed normal random
variables with variance σ2=0
The specification test is performed by using
Theorem
Theorem 1: Under the null hypothesis H0, the asymptotic
distributions of Jd(q) and Jr(q) .
Theorem 2.: Under the null hypothesis H, the asymptotic
distributions of the statistics Md(q), Mr(q), Md(q), and Mr(q) .
Heteroscedastic increments
Since there is already a growing consensus among financial economists
that volatilities do change over time, a rejection of the random walk
hypothesis because of heteroscedasticity would not be of much
interest .
The Random Walk Hypothesis for Weekly
Returns
To test for random walks in stock market prices, we focus on the
1216- week time span from September 6, 1962, to December 26,
1985. Our choice of a weekly observation interval was determined by
several considerations .
The weekly stock returns are derived from the CRSP daily returns file
Conclusion
We have rejected the random walk hypothesis for weekly stock market
returns by using a simple volatility-based specification test. These
rejections cannot be explained completely by infrequent trading or
time-varying volatilities. The patterns of rejections indicate that the
stationary mean-reverting models of Shiller and Perron (1985),
Summers (1986), Poterba and Summers (1987), and Fama and French
(1987) cannot account for the departures of weekly returns from the
random walk.

You might also like