The white-noise / random-walk distinction is the keystone of empirical finance. Prices are (approximately) random walks. Returns are (approximately) white noise. Conflating the two is the most common conceptual error among newcomers to time-series finance.
White noise
ε_t ~ WN(0, σ²)E[ε_t] = 0, Var(ε_t) = σ², Cov(ε_t, ε_s) = 0 for t ≠ s
Weak white noise requires only uncorrelatedness. Strong white noise (= i.i.d. with zero mean) is a stronger condition. Gaussian white noise = i.i.d. N(0, σ²). The error term in most time-series models is assumed white noise of one of these flavours.
Random walks
X_t = X_{t-1} + ε_t, ε_t ~ WN(0, σ²)X_t = X_0 + Σ_{s=1}^t ε_s (cumulative sum)
- Mean: E[X_t] = X_0 (constant, conditional on the starting value).
- Variance: Var(X_t) = t σ² — grows linearly with t. Non-stationary.
- Increment: X_t - X_{t-1} = ε_t. The first difference is white noise.
Random walk with drift
X_t = μ + X_{t-1} + ε_tE[X_t] = X_0 + μt (linear trend in mean)Var(X_t) = t σ² (still grows linearly)
This is the standard model for log prices: log P_t = log P_{t-1} + μ + ε_t, equivalently log P_t = log P_0 + μ t + (sum of ε_s). The drift μ corresponds to the expected log return per period. Returns r_t = log P_t - log P_{t-1} = μ + ε_t are white noise around μ.
Why prices look random
Efficient market hypothesis (Fama, 1965-70): if prices reflect all available information, future price changes must be unpredictable given current information. Therefore returns are (approximately) white noise. This is a testable implication, not a metaphysical claim — and a vast literature documents deviations (momentum, mean reversion, microstructure), though most are small in magnitude or expensive to exploit.
What efficiency does and doesn't say
Efficiency means returns are unpredictable, not that returns are zero. A stock can have a positive expected return (the equity risk premium) and still have white-noise innovations around that drift. 'Prices follow a random walk' is shorthand for 'log prices follow a random walk with drift'. The drift is the predictable bit — what active managers spend their lives trying to estimate.
Testing for randomness
- Ljung-Box test: joint test of zero autocorrelation up to lag h. Q-statistic ~ χ²_h under H₀.
- Variance ratio test (Lo-MacKinlay 1988): if returns are uncorrelated, the variance over k periods should be k times the one-period variance. Powerful against mean-reversion alternatives.
- Runs test, BDS test: non-parametric checks for independence vs serial dependence.
From white noise to GBM
Aggregating a random walk with drift in the continuous-time limit gives geometric Brownian motion (Stochastic Calculus Module 1). The bridge is the central limit theorem applied to compounded white-noise innovations. This is the connection between discrete-time empirical finance and the Black-Scholes continuous-time world.
Exercise
You log-price an NSE stock at 10:00 and again at 11:00 every trading day for a year (252 days). You compute the variance of the 252 changes. You also collect daily log returns close-to-close and compute their variance. (1) Under a pure random-walk hypothesis for log prices, what relationship should the two variances have? (2) Suppose the 10:00→11:00 variance is much larger than 1/6.5 of the close-to-close variance. What might explain it?