Sign up  |  Log in

Random Walk / First Differencing

One thing that is really confusing me is in the text it states that:

”.. the FX rate is a random walk, as we now suspect. If so, the first differenced series will be covariance stationary.”

Elsewhere is also says that:

“… modelling the first-differenced time series with an AR(1) model does not help us predict the future, as b0=0 and b1=1.” 

Does this mean that if you first difference a series and b0=0 and b1=0 then the original time series is a random walk, but if b0=0 and b1 is not equal to 0 it isn’t? AAAGH!

Make the most of your CFA® Progam prep in one weekend! Join renowned instructors Peter Olinto & David Hetherington in May for a live, two-day intensive final review class.

FX spot rate are not random walks, they are approximately random walks. Indeed, they have mean revert levels which they tend to achieve in the long-run (20-30 years).

Not always a first-difference is enough, maybe it is needed 2 or more.

If you first difference a random walk, b0 and b1 will be statistically equal to zero because they can not find a constant pattern (a constant difference) that can be used as an average, so this reveals that the original time serie was a random walk.

If you get that b1 is statistically significant, then the time serie was not a random walk. A graphic of the serie is a very important help.

Las almas de todos los hombres son inmortales, pero las almas de los justos son inmortales y divinas.


Could someone please help me out by posting a graph displaying why the first difference (b1) does not differ from zero when there is random walk? I still cannot wrap my head around this issue.

An investment in knowledge pays the best interest - Benjamin Franklin

Is first-differencing mean regress dependent yt on independent xt−xt−1, I don’t understand.