The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Random Walks in Stock Market Prices
Abstract
This article describes briefly and simply the theory of random walks and some of the important issues it raises concerning the work of market analysts. A discussion of two common approaches to predicting stock prices—the chartist (or technical) theories and the theory of fundamental (or intrinsic) value—allows the reader to put the theory of random walks into perspective. The theory of the market as efficient (at least semistrong efficient) and characterized as a random walk states that successive price changes in individual securities are independent and a series of stock price changes has no memory; thus, the past history of the series cannot be used to predict the future history. Empirical evidence indicates that, although price changes may not be strictly independent, the dependence is so slight that a simple buy-and-hold strategy beats any strategy based on mechanical trading rules. The implications of the market being a random walk are devastating for chartism. For fundamental value analysis, the implications are more complex. If the market is efficient, stock prices at any point in time represent good estimates of intrinsic value, so additional analysis is useless unless the analyst has new (private) information or insights. The challenge for each type of analysis is to show that their methods produce more return than a random sample of securities.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Middle‐Status Conformity: Theoretical Restatement and Empirical Demonstration in Two Markets
Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/324072 · Cited by 845
Text mining for market prediction: A systematic review
Khadjeh Nassirtoussi, A., Aghabozorgi, S., Ying Wah, T., & Ngo, D. C. L. (2014) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.06.009 · Cited by 615
A systematic review of fundamental and technical analysis of stock market predictions
Nti, I. K., Adekoya, A. F., & Weyori, B. A. (2020) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-019-09754-z · Cited by 547
Stock Market Analysis: A Review and Taxonomy of Prediction Techniques
Shah, D., Isah, H., & Zulkernine, F. (2019) · International Journal of Financial Studies · doi:10.3390/ijfs7020026 · Cited by 465
A review of deep learning with special emphasis on architectures, applications and recent trends
Sengupta, S., Basak, S., Saikia, P., Paul, S., Tsalavoutis, V., Atiah, F., Ravi, V., & Peters, A. (2020) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105596 · Cited by 454
Metadata
- Authors
- Fama, E. F.
- Venue
- Financial Analysts Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75-80
- ISSN
- 0015-198X (ISSN-L)
- 1938-3312
- OpenAlex
- W2940897671
- Cited by
- 1,227
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.88
- Type
- journal article
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Random Walks in Stock Market Prices. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2469/faj.v51.n1.1861
- The paper
- Fama, E. F. (1995). Random Walks in Stock Market Prices. Financial Analysts Journal. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v51.n1.1861
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.