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:
A key practical challenge of Dickey–Fuller unit-root testing is:
In a pure deterministic seasonal-dummy model, long-horizon forecasts:
Approximate 95% prediction half-width for a driftless random walk with σ = 2 at horizon h = 16 is closest to: