Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 828

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Filter Rules and Stock-Market Trading

Fama, Eugene F., Blume, Marshall E.·1966·The Journal of Business
DOI 10.1086/294849
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

IN THE recent literature there has been a considerable interest in the theory of random walks in stock-market prices. The basic hypothesis of the theory is that successive price changes in individual securities are independent random variables. Independence implies, of course, that the past history of a series of changes cannot be used to predict future changes in any meaningful way. What constitutes a meaningful prediction depends, of course, on the purpose for which the data are being examined. For example, the investor wants to know whether the history of prices can be used to increase expected gains. In a random-walk market, with either zero or positive drift, no mechanical trading rule applied to an individual security would consistently outperform a policy of simply buying and holding the security. Thus, the investor who must choose between the random-walk model and a more complicated model which assumes the existence of an excessive degree of either persistence (positive dependence) or reaction (negative dependence) in successive price changes, should accept the theory of random walks as the better model if the actual degree of dependence cannot be used to produce greater expected profits than a buy-and-hold policy.' On the other hand, the statistician has different though equally pragmatic notions of what constitutes an important violation of the independence assumption of the random-walk model. He will

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/294849

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Fama, E. F., & Blume, M. E.
Venue
The Journal of Business
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
1966-01
Volume
39
Issue
S1
Pages
226
ISSN
  • 0021-9398 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5374
DOI
10.1086/294849
OpenAlex
W1989275788
Cited by
828
References
0
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.