7.3 Non-Stationary Time Series
Key Takeaways
Deterministic trends and seasonal dummies can make the mean time-dependent; stochastic trends (unit roots) make shocks permanent
A random walk yₜ = yₜ₋₁ + εₜ is a leading unit-root process: variance grows with t and there is no mean reversion
Unit-root tests (e.g., Dickey–Fuller) have nonstandard distributions and low power against near-unit-root alternatives—interpretation needs care
With deterministic seasonality, h-step forecasts should carry the seasonal pattern forward while stochastic seasonal unit roots behave differently
Trend forecasts need explicit trend extrapolation plus widening prediction intervals as horizon grows
Non-Stationary Time Series
Many risk-relevant series—price levels, cumulative P&L, some macro factors—are non-stationary. Applying stationary ARMA formulas without transformation produces spurious regressions, misleading R², and invalid t-stats. This section separates deterministic trends and seasonal means from stochastic unit-root trends and shows how forecasts change.
Trends: Deterministic Versus Stochastic
A deterministic trend example:
yₜ = α + β t + uₜ,
with uₜ stationary. The mean E[yₜ] = α + β t moves with calendar time, so {yₜ} is not covariance stationary, but demeaning by subtracting the fitted trend (or including t in a regression) can restore a stationary residual.
A stochastic trend (unit root) example is the random walk below: there is no fixed attractor; the “level” wanders. Differencing once, Δyₜ = yₜ − yₜ₋₁, often yields a stationary series (integrated of order 1, or I(1)).
| Feature | Deterministic trend | Unit-root / random walk |
|---|---|---|
| Shock effect | Temporary around the trend line | Permanent level shift |
| Variance of yₜ | Trend in mean; residual variance can be stable | Unconditional Var(yₜ) grows with t |
| Typical fix | Detrend / include t | Difference (or cointegrate) |
| Forecast long run | Returns toward trend path | Fan chart widens without bound |
Mis-detrending a unit root (treating it as deterministic) or over-differencing a trend-stationary series both distort inference—exam questions often probe which transformation matches which DGP.
Seasonal Dummies
Deterministic seasonality shifts the mean by season:
yₜ = α + Σ_{s=1}^{S−1} δₛ Dₛₜ + uₜ,
where Dₛₜ are seasonal dummy variables (omit one season if an intercept is present to avoid perfect collinearity). Quarterly S = 4; monthly S = 12.
Use seasonal dummies when the seasonal pattern is a stable calendar mean shift and residuals look stationary. If seasonality itself has a unit root (seasonal integration), seasonal differencing (1 − Lˢ) may be required instead of—or in addition to—dummies.
Worked dummy collinearity reminder
Monthly model with intercept plus 12 month dummies → perfect collinearity. Use intercept + 11 dummies, or 12 dummies and no intercept. Same logic as regression diagnostics in QA–9.
Random Walks and Unit Roots
Random walk (with no drift):
yₜ = yₜ₋₁ + εₜ, εₜ white noise.
Then yₜ = y₀ + Σ_{j=1}^{t} εⱼ, so Var(yₜ) = t σ² if Var(ε) = σ² and y₀ fixed. There is no mean reversion: E[yₜ₊ₕ | yₜ] = yₜ. ACF of levels stays near 1 for many lags—classic nonstationary symptom.
Random walk with drift: yₜ = μ + yₜ₋₁ + εₜ combines a deterministic drift μ t with a stochastic trend.
Unit root means the AR polynomial has a root equal to 1: (1 − L) factor. AR(1) with φ = 1 is the leading case. Near-unit roots (φ = 0.99) look similar in short samples but are still mean-reverting in population—hence testing pain.
Worked variance growth
σ = 1, y₀ = 0. After t = 100 steps, Var(y₁₀₀) = 100 under a pure random walk. A stationary AR(1) with φ = 0.9 has Var(y) = 1/(1 − 0.81) ≈ 5.26 regardless of t (in the limit). Levels of I(1) series wander much more than stationary alternatives.
Unit-Root Testing Challenges
The Dickey–Fuller (DF) / Augmented DF (ADF) approach tests H₀: φ = 1 in Δyₜ = c + δ t + π yₜ₋₁ + lags of Δy + eₜ, with π = φ − 1. Under the null, the t-statistic on π does not follow a Student-t; use Dickey–Fuller critical values (more negative than usual t crits).
Challenges FRM candidates must respect:
- Low power against stationary alternatives with φ near 1—failure to reject does not prove a unit root.
- Specification of deterministic terms (none / constant / constant+trend) changes null and critical values; wrong choice misleads.
- Structural breaks can mimic unit roots if ignored.
- Sample size: financial daily samples are long in n but may still have slow mean reversion economically.
| Issue | Practical implication |
|---|---|
| Nonstandard null distribution | Do not use ±1.96 on the DF t-stat |
| Low power | “Cannot reject unit root” ≠ strong confirmation |
| Breaks / regime shifts | May need break-robust tests or subsample care |
| Over-differencing | Can induce MA unit root / unnecessary noise |
h-Step Forecasts with Seasonality
For a stationary seasonal ARMA, forecasts converge to the unconditional mean, but at seasonal horizons the path still reflects seasonal AR/MA weights before dying out.
For deterministic seasonal means, the h-step forecast should use the dummy (or seasonal factor) appropriate for date t+h:
ŷₜ₊ₕ = α̂ + δ̂_{season(t+h)} (+ any stationary dynamics forecast).
Example: if Q4 always runs +2 above the average of other quarters in a pure dummy model, a forecast landing in Q4 should include that +2 even at long horizons—deterministic seasonality does not fade, unlike stationary stochastic seasonality.
For a seasonal random walk (yₜ = yₜ₋ₛ + εₜ), the forecast is ŷₜ₊ₕ = yₜ₊ₕ₋ₛₖ copying the last same-season observation for horizons that are multiples of s—shocks persist in that seasonal slot.
Worked seasonal forecast
Quarterly sales index with only seasonal dummies, estimated means: Q1 = 100, Q2 = 110, Q3 = 105, Q4 = 120. From the end of Q2, the 1-step forecast (Q3) is 105; the 2-step (Q4) is 120; the 3-step (next Q1) is 100. Horizons do not shrink these deterministic seasonal gaps.
Trend Forecasts and Prediction Intervals
Deterministic trend forecast: ŷₜ₊ₕ = α̂ + β̂ (t+h). Interval width depends mainly on residual variance and parameter uncertainty; if uₜ is stationary, interval width approaches a finite bound (plus parameter uncertainty) rather than growing like √h without limit.
Random-walk forecast: ŷₜ₊ₕ = yₜ (no drift) or yₜ + μ̂ h (with drift). Forecast-error variance ≈ h σ², so interval width grows like √h. Long-horizon fan charts for I(1) prices are inherently wide—critical for long-run risk communications.
Worked interval growth
Random walk, σ = 2, 95% approx. interval for h-step error using ±1.96 σ √h:
| Horizon h | Approx. half-width 1.96×2×√h |
|---|---|
| 1 | 3.92 |
| 4 | 7.84 |
| 16 | 15.68 |
| 25 | 19.6 |
Uncertainty compounds with the square root of horizon under independent increments.
Practical FRM Checklist
- Plot the series and ACF of levels vs differences.
- Decide deterministic trend / seasonal dummies vs unit root / seasonal difference using economics plus careful tests.
- Avoid regressing independent I(1) levels on each other without cointegration theory.
- Match forecast formulas to the chosen DGP: fading (stationary), copying seasons (seasonal RW), or extrapolating t (deterministic trend).
- Always widen intervals with horizon for stochastic trends.
Non-stationarity is not a nuisance to ignore: it changes what “mean,” “shock,” and “forecast risk” mean in market and credit time series.
For a driftless random walk yₜ = yₜ₋₁ + εₜ with Var(εₜ) = σ², Var(yₜ) given fixed y₀ grows:
Linearly with t: Var(yₜ) = t σ²
As a constant σ² / (1 − φ²)
Only at seasonal lags
Not at all if the ACF is high
A key practical challenge of Dickey–Fuller unit-root testing is:
The test uses ordinary ±1.96 critical values under the null
It can only be used on MA(1) data
Low power against highly persistent but stationary alternatives and nonstandard null distributions
Rejecting the null always proves the series has a deterministic trend
In a pure deterministic seasonal-dummy model, long-horizon forecasts:
Must converge to a single unconditional mean that ignores season
Equal the last observation forever, like a random walk
Require φ = 1 in an AR(1)
Should use the seasonal mean appropriate for the future calendar period (seasonality does not fade)
Approximate 95% prediction half-width for a driftless random walk with σ = 2 at horizon h = 16 is closest to:
2
3.92
15.68
32
Sections you finish are checked off in the contents.