The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A non-random walk down Wall Street
Abstract
For over half a century, financial experts have regarded the movements of markets as a random walk--unpredictable meanderings akin to a drunkard's unsteady gait--and this hypothesis has become a cornerstone of modern financial economics and many investment strategies. Here Andrew W. Lo and A. Craig MacKinlay put the Random Walk Hypothesis to the test. In this volume, which elegantly integrates their most important articles, Lo and MacKinlay find that markets are not completely random after all, and that predictable components do exist in recent stock and bond returns. Their book provides a state-of-the-art account of the techniques for detecting predictabilities and evaluating their statistical and economic significance, and offers a tantalizing glimpse into the financial technologies of the future. The articles track the exciting course of Lo and MacKinlay's research on the predictability of stock prices from their early work on rejecting random walks in short-horizon returns to their analysis of long-term memory in stock market prices. A particular highlight is their now-famous inquiry into the pitfalls of data-snooping biases that have arisen from the widespread use of the same historical databases for discovering anomalies and developing seemingly profitable investment strategies. This book invites scholars to reconsider the Random Walk Hypothesis, and, by carefully documenting the presence of predictable components in the stock market, also directs investment professionals toward superior long-term investment returns through disciplined active investment management.
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
The Efficient Market Hypothesis and Its Critics
Malkiel, B. G. (2003) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/089533003321164958 · Cited by 2,161
Stock market's price movement prediction with LSTM neural networks
Nelson, D. M. Q., Pereira, A. C. M., & de Oliveira, R. A. (2017) · 2017 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2017.7966019 · Cited by 951
The Statistics of Sharpe Ratios
Lo, A. W. (2002) · Financial Analysts Journal · doi:10.2469/faj.v58.n4.2453 · Cited by 843
The evolution of stock market efficiency over time: A survey of the empirical literature
Lim, K.-P., & Brooks, R. (2011) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2009.00611.x · Cited by 410
Frontiers of finance: Evolution and efficient markets
Farmer, J. D., & Lo, A. W. (1999) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.9991 · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1999-12-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 37-2272-37-2272
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2017059355
- Cited by
- 647
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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: A non-random walk down Wall Street. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.37-2272
- The paper
- A non-random walk down Wall Street. (1999). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.37-2272
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.