A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
1
A BIFURCATION MODEL OF NON-STATIONARY MARKETS
David Nawrocki*
Villanova University
College of Commerce and Finance
800 Lancaster Avenue
Villanova, PA 19085 USA
610-519-4323
David.Nawrocki@villanova.edu
Tonis Vaga
401 Linden Lane
Brielle, NJ 08730
732-528-8239
tonisvaga@yahoo.com
* Authors are listed alphabetically. The first author is the contact person responsible for
correspondence concerning this paper.
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
2
A BIFURCATION MODEL OF NON-STATIONARY MARKETS
ABSTRACT
We propose a non-stationary model of market disequilibrium that features bifurcation of
a linear, mean regressive, equilibrium state into trend persistent coherent market states.
Empirical data covering the period between 1930 and 2005 suggests that the Dow Jones
Industrial Average has exhibited trend persistence approximately 81% of the time. Mean
regressive markets appear to follow highly volatile periods. A bifurcation dynamic is
also evident in returns conditioned on both prior day price and volume. Returns
following rising prior day volume exhibit trend persistent behavior. This finding is
consistent with prior research indicating a positive relationship between trading volume
and serial correlations for daily returns.
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
3
A BIFURCATION MODEL OF NON-STATIONARY MARKETS
INTRODUCTION
Recent studies cast doubt on the common practice of modeling stock returns or
expected returns as a constant linear function of risk. Fama and French (1989) find that
the risk premium embedded in expected returns moves inversely with business
conditions. Whitelaw (1994) reports that both expected returns and conditional volatility
move in response to the business cycle. Nawrocki (1995, 1996) and Chauvet (1998a,
1998b) propose and find a dynamic relationship between stock market fluctuations and
business cycles. Perez-Quiros and Timmermann (2000) find asymmetries in the
conditional mean and volatility of excess stock returns around business cycle turning
points. Chauvet and Potter (2000, 2001) suggest a nonlinear risk measure that allows for
the risk-return relationship to not be constant over Markov states (bull or bear) or over
time. Perez-Quiros and Timmermann (2001) also find support for a Markov switching
model with time-varying means and variances. DeStefano (2004) tests a four-state model
of the business cycle that provides additional proof that stock returns vary inversely with
economic conditions. Finally, Guidolin and Timmermann (2005) discover that a four-
state model is necessary to capture the joint distribution of US stock and bond returns.
In summary, empirical work suggests a nonlinear financial market dynamic at work,
requiring evolutionary, financial state transition models.
The application of evolutionary theory to economic processes is strongly defended by
Boulding (1981a, 1981b) and Nawrocki (1984, 1995). The use of entropy theory and
bifurcation theory is extensive in the finance and economics literature, [Murphy (1965),
Georgescu-Roegen (1971), Cozzolino and Zahner (1973), and Majthay (1980)]. Among
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
4
early research in this area, Nawrocki (1984) explores non-stationary mean jump
processes and non-stationary variability processes in the financial markets while Vaga
(1990) proposes a state transition model for the financial markets based on Weidlich
(1971), Callen and Shapero (1974) and Haken (1975).
More recently, many questions are being raised regarding the assumptions underlying
the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) in Shiller (2000) and Schliefer (2000).
Alternating trending and mean reverting investor sentiment models are proposed in
Barberis, Shleifer and Vishny (1998). Hong and Stein (1999) suggest positive
correlations in returns are due to the slow dissemination of information. Wyart and
Bouchaud (2003) propose that feedback dynamics among a subset of market agents are
sufficient to create trends in anticipation of correlations. Finally Dopfer (2005) offers
unifying principles to the evolutionary approach to economics, and includes contributions
by Haken and Prigogine.
The purpose of this paper, after a brief survey of the work in financial market
disequilibrium, is to review evolutionary market state transition models and provide
additional empirical evidence in support of disequilibrium theories of the financial
markets. The structure of the paper is as follows. First, models of financial market
disequilibrium and entropy are described from the economic perspective. Next, Haken’s
general evolutionary model of state transitions is used to describe bifurcations in
undisseminated market information and conditional return states. Finally, empirical
evidence in support of the non-stationary market disequilibrium theories is presented.
FINANCIAL MARKET DISEQUILIBRIUM
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
5
The traditional tatonnement model of market equilibrium assumes a stationary
information process and an infinite speed of information dissemination in the
marketplace. The market prices that result from this process adjust immediately to new
information. Since new information is an independent process, the usual random walk
model is developed in Fama (1970).
The assumption that markets have an infinite speed of information dissemination,
however, has been questioned by a number of researchers. A developing body of
literature offers disequilibrium models of market processes. Beja and Hakansson (1977)
argue that a swift movement to a pareto-optimum price in the classical tatonnement
process is unlikely in actual security prices because of institutional rigidities such as taxes
and transaction costs. It is more likely that markets will trade at disequilibrium prices in a
search for equilibrium but will not converge to equilibrium. Grossman and Stiglitz (1976)
suggest that prices never fully adjust because of a noisy information system, the costs of
acquiring and evaluating information, and the continuing need to adjust to new
information shocks to the economy. Black (1976) argues that disequilibrium prices result
from lags in the information process.
Morse (1980) argues further that the speed of information dissemination, while
finite, is not constant, and varies with the amount of new information. With the arrival of
new information, the greater the disparity between the equilibrium price and the actual
price, the more investors want to trade, and increasing trading volume increases the
market’s speed of information dissemination. Because of the aforementioned restrictions
affecting the speed of information dissemination, greater dependence in security returns
also occurs during this period. Morse’s results indicate a positive relationship between
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
6
trading volume and serial correlations for daily data for a mixture of NYSE, AMEX and
OTC stocks.
A BIFURCATION MODEL OF MARKET DISEQUILIBRIUM
A simple bifurcation model of equilibrium states in a wide variety of systems from
various disciplines outside of finance is provided by Haken (1975) using the concept of
the damped anharmonic oscillator. Weidlich (1971) uses a similar approach to describe
states of polarized opinion in social systems. Following Haken (1975), we model the
market return, R, as:
lim
t
→0
(1/t)[R(t) – R(0)] = k [R(0)] + f [I(t), t]
(1)
where k[R(0)] = - ∑
i
a
i
R(0)
i
represents undisseminated information following a known
return, R(0) while f[I(t), t] represents random new information arrival. Setting a
0
and a
2
equal to zero, we focus on the parameters a
1
and a
3
which control the bifurcation between
a single equilibrium state to bi-stable states and the speed of the market’s information
dissemination process. Given our simplifying assumptions, Equation 1 can be expressed
as
∂R(t)/∂t = – a
1
R – a
3
R
3
+
f[I(t),
t]
(2)
With the nonlinear feedback term, – a
3
R
3
, Equation 2 is an extension of the Langevin
equation of Brownian motion. Therefore, this quantitative model of market dynamics
corresponds to the linear random walk as a special case and also allows examination of
the bifurcated equilibrium states that result from the nonlinear term. The Langevin
equation also underlies the phase transition model in Vaga (1990) and Wyart and
Bouchaud (2003).
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
7
Putting random forces f[I(t), t] = 0 for the moment, the time dependent solution to
Equation 4 has the form
R(t) = ± (a
1
)
1/2
[exp(2 a
1
t) – a
3
]
-1/2
for a
3
> 0 and a
1
> 0
(3)
and
R(t) = ± (|a
1
|)
1/2
[a
3
- exp(-2| a
1
|t)]
-1/2
for a
3
> 0 and a
1
< 0
(4)
The parameter “a
1
” can be viewed as the inverse “relaxation time” or the rate at which
the system evolves toward equilibrium as t approaches infinity. In Equation (3), there is
a single equilibrium state at R = 0, since we have arbitrarily set a
0
= 0.
In Equation (3) (when a
3
> 0 and a
1
> 0) the slope of k(R) is everywhere negative.
This implies that information dissemination causes returns to regress toward the long
term mean as new information arrives at random and creates temporary disequilibrium
states. As a
1
decreases, the slope decreases, and the speed of information dissemination
decreases and the market reacts more slowly to new information arrival. An unstable
transition occurs when a
1
= 0, a bifurcation point, where the market’s long term average
return is no longer a stable equilibrium point.
In equation (4) (when a
3
> 0 and a
1
< 0) a bifurcation results in two new equilibrium
states. Therefore, the sign of the parameter “a
1
” controls the bifurcation from a single
equilibrium state (when a
3
> 0 and a
1
> 0) into two states (when a
3
> 0 and a
1
< 0). One
new stable state is at R(bull) = + |(a
1
/a
3
)|
1/2
while the other stable state is at R(bear) = -
|(a
1
/a
3
)|
1/2
. In general, the market’s new stable states may be far from the original
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
8
equilibrium state. These states can be observed empirically by examining the conditional
return data in historical market time series.
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
In order to assess the validity of bifurcation model for the capital markets we examine
the correlation of daily market returns, R(t), with prior day returns, R(0). If there is a
single stable equilibrium state around the market’s long term average return (linear
random walk), the residual undisseminated information should tend to cause returns to
regress toward the long term mean. The daily mean return is 0.026% (6.7% annualized)
for the Dow Jones Industrial Average over the period from 1930 to 2005. If the market
behaves more as a bistable disequilibrium system, then the residual undisseminated
information would cause returns to drift toward either the stable bull or bear states, far
from the long term average.
Trend persistent states are clearly evident in historical conditional return data for both
the stock and bond markets. Moderate price returns tend to persist in direction, though
periods of mean regressive behavior are also evident. Historical time series analysis of
both major stock market averages and the bond market provides statistically significant
evidence of bistable financial market disequilibrium.
Dow Jones Industrial Average
The conditional returns for the DJIA from 1930 to 2005 are summarized in Table 1 for
0.5% increments between -3.75% and +3.75%. Data beyond this range are considered to
be outliers. The table summarizes the mean return, standard deviation of return, relative
frequency of return and the results of a t-test which compares the conditional return
sample to the total sample to rule out the null hypothesis. For simplicity of notation,
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
9
prior day returns, R, within an interval, e.g. 0.25% < R < 0.75%, are listed in the table as
0.5% the center of the interval. Likewise Tables 2 through Table 7 summarize relevant
data for other cases of interest.
The data shows statistically significant trend persistent behavior on average for the
DJIA over the sample period in the regions of moderate positive and negative returns.
The slope of the conditional return map in the area where there is the greatest amount of
data and where the null hypothesis can be clearly rejected, corresponds to the bifurcated,
bistable market states.
Figure 1 illustrates actual conditional returns and volatility for the DJIA dating back to
the period following the Crash of 1929. The data covers more than seven decades of
daily price changes. It clearly demonstrates that the conditional returns (average return
following prior day return of a given size) exhibit the trend reinforcing behavior for
moderate daily returns within the -2.0% to +3.5% region. This data suggests that on
average, over the long run, the market can be viewed as being in bifurcated, trend
persistent states. This nonlinear random walk or jump process, characterized by a
persistent drift toward bistable disequilibrium states (rather than the simple mean
regression) is evidenced by the positive slope of the conditional return map in the region
near the market’s long term average return.
The conditional return findings presented in Figure 1 include all data from January
1930 to January 2005 regardless of underlying economic fundamentals or liquidity issues
that affect the markets from time to time. A polynomial fit [k(R) = -159.8 R
3
+ 2.225 R
2
+ 0.1134 R - 0.0002] to the data shows an r-square of 89%. This fit suggests that the
maximum trend persistence for moderate positive returns occurs approximately after
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
10
prior returns of 2% with an average daily return on the subsequent day of slightly more
than 0.15% and the drift is toward a stable disequilibrium bull state at over +3% where
the conditional return drops to zero. Trend persistence for moderate negative returns is
greatest after prior day returns of about –1.5% and average around –0.1%. The
disequilibrium bear state is at about –2% where the trend persistence vanishes.
Bifurcation Parameter
While the empirical evidence suggests that the bi-stable disequilibrium is the main
dynamic for the capital markets’ long-term average behavior, a closer examination
reveals that at times the market is either in a single, linear equilibrium state or at the
critical bifurcation point. This situation occurred most noticeably in the era of the Great
Depression after the Crash of 1929. It has also occurred in the aftermath of the 2000
High Tech Crash.
In order to examine the market’s state transitions, we determine the slope of the
conditional return map for moderate returns around the neighborhood of zero. If the
market is in a single equilibrium state, the slope near zero should be negative (a
1
> 0)
while if bi-stable states exist, the slope near zero should be positive (a
1
< 0). To
determine a bifurcation parameter, we use a 200 day sum of the conditional returns in the
region of moderate positive prior day returns [0.025 < R(0) < 2.25%] and subtract the 200
day sum of moderate negative prior day returns [-0.025 > R(0) > -2.25%]. If the slope of
the conditional return map near zero is positive, as expected in bi-stable, trend persistent
markets, then the sum of returns after moderate positive returns should also be positive.
Moderate negative returns should be followed on average by further negative trend
persistence. Therefore a positive bifurcation parameter indicates a bi-stable market and a
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
11
negative bifurcation parameter indicates a single equilibrium state market. By using the
sum instead of the average conditional return, we also have a metric of an idealized, cost-
free, trading strategy that is long after positive prior day returns and short after negative
prior day returns.
Figure 2 summarizes the bifurcation parameter for the Dow Jones Industrial Average
since 1930. The most significant periods of “single equilibrium state” occurred following
the Crash of 1929 when the market suffered from poor liquidity and disinterest on the
part of many who had been hurt as a result of the crash. Even during the 1930s there was
also a great deal of volatility in this indicator. In contrast, for many decades after the
1930s the market enjoyed strong bi-stable disequilibrium behavior. While the bifurcation
indicator fluctuated over these decades, the fluctuations were normally in positive
territory.
Dow Jones Industrial Average – Bistable Markets
Table 2 and Figure 3 present the conditional return map for the bi-stable market
periods as determined by the bifurcation parameter in Figure 2. The market was in the
bi-stable state 81.2% of the time from 1930 to 2005 and in the single equilibrium state for
only 18.8% of the time. A better resolution of the bi-stable market is achieved by
eliminating the single state and transition periods which are mean regressing rather than
trend persistent.
The conditional return findings presented in Figure 3 include all data during a
positive bifurcation parameter from January 1930 to January 2005 regardless of
underlying economic fundamentals. A polynomial fit [k(R) = -156.2 R
3
+ 2.572 R
2
+
0.145 R - 0.0003] to the data shows an r-square of 86%. This fit suggests that the peak in
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
12
trend persistence for moderate positive returns occurs approximately after prior returns of
2.5% with an average daily return on the subsequent day of slightly more than 0.25% and
the drift is toward a stable disequilibrium bull state at over +3.5% where the conditional
return drops to zero. Trend persistence for moderate negative returns is greatest after
prior day returns of about –1.5% and average around –0.1%. The disequilibrium bear
state is at about –2.5% where the trend persistence vanishes.
Dow Jones Industrial Average – Single Equilibrium and Transition Periods
Table 3 and Figure 4 present the conditional return map for the single equilibrium
market periods. Since there is less data for the single equilibrium periods, the data is
more erratic and the null hypothesis can not be ruled out. This may be due in part to the
relatively long sample used to assess the bifurcation parameter. By the time the single
market state has been identified, often it has already transitioned to the bifurcation point
or beyond to bi-stable behavior.
The conditional return findings presented in Figure 4 include all data during a
negative bifurcation parameter from January 1930 to January 2005 regardless of
underlying economic fundamentals. A linear fit [k(R) = -0.0905 R + 0.0005] to the data
shows an r-square of 44%. However a nonlinear fit [k(R) = -119.0R
3
+ 1.116R
2
+
0.0088R + 1E-05 has a better fit with an r-square of 56%. Therefore the coefficient of
the linear term is probably between +0.0905 and -0.0088 and we conclude that the
periods when the bifurcation parameter is negative include both single state, linear state
markets and periods at the critical bifurcation state.
Business Cycle Stages
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
13
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines periods of recession and
expansion in terms of peaks and troughs in economic activity. Periods of expansion begin
at the trough date and end at the peak date. Periods of recession begin at the peak date
and end at the trough date. DeStefano (2004) uses the peak and trough dates to separate
the business cycle into the four stages: Stage I, early expansion, begins at the trough date
and continues through one half of the expansionary period. Stage II, late expansion, is
defined as the second half of the expansionary period and concludes at the peak date.
Recessions include Stages III and IV, which, are interpreted as early decline and late
decline, respectively. Since the NBER only defines peak and trough dates, the dates that
separate Stages I and II and Stages III and IV occur in the chronological middle of the
trough-to-peak and peak-to-trough time periods.
In order to assess how business cycle phases affect market equilibrium states, we
examine the DJIA conditional returns and volatility during the four business cycle phases
as defined by DeStefano (2004). Table 4 summarizes the best data fit for the periods
defined by DeStefano as Stages I, II, III and IV as well as for combined Stage I and II
(expansion) and combined Stage III and IV (recession). Figure 5 illustrates the
conditional return maps for each of the four business cycle stages. The results show that
the expansionary phases of the business cycle have well defined bistable market behavior
with trend persistence after moderate returns and mean regressing dynamics after large
returns in either direction.
Volume Based Bifurcation
Table 5 and Figure 6 present the conditional return map for market periods following
prior day volume increases of 25% or more. The conditional return findings include all
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
14
data following rising volume from January 1930 to January 2005 regardless of underlying
economic fundamentals. A polynomial fit [k(R) = -151.4 R
3
+ 1.22 R
2
+ 0.156 R -
0.00003] to the data shows an r-square of 78%. This fit suggests that the peak in trend
persistence for moderate positive returns occurs approximately after prior returns of 2.5%
with an average daily return on the subsequent day of slightly more than 0.25% and the
drift is toward a stable disequilibrium bull state at over +3.0% where the conditional
return drops to zero. Trend persistence for moderate negative returns is greatest after
prior day returns of about –1.5% and average around –0.25%. The disequilibrium bear
state is at about –3.0% where the trend persistence vanishes.
Table 6 and Figure 7 present the conditional return map for periods following a 25%
or greater decline in volume. The conditional return findings are based on all data
following a daily 25% volume decline from January 1930 to January 2005 regardless of
underlying economic fundamentals. The conditional return map in this case resembles
the single equilibrium, mean regressive market periods. A linear fit [k(R) = -0.329 R +
0.0015] to the data shows an r-square of 53%.
10 Year US Treasury Bonds
Interest rates also show significant nonlinear trend persistence and bi-stable or
bifurcated states. Table 7 and Figure 8 present the conditional return map and volatility
of returns for the 10 Year US Treasury Bond from 1962 to 2003. Interest rate change
persistence follows the same pattern of increasing volatility with the magnitude of prior
day rate changes. A polynomial fit for conditional interest rate changes [-174.0 R
3
+
0.459 R
2
+ 0.148 R] shows an r-square of 0.77 while volatility of rate changes has a best
fit [7.16 R
2
+0.042 R + 0.0087] with an r-square of 0.70. Moderate positive rate
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
15
increases on the prior day are followed on average by further rate increases and moderate
interest rate declines are followed on average by further interest rate declines. Rising rate
persistence appears to extend out to +3% where it stabilizes at zero. Declining rate
persistence tends to achieve stability in the –3% region. Therefore the bond market
information dissemination process can also be characterized as a drift towards bistable
disequilibrium.
A bifurcation parameter can also be calculated for the US Treasury Bond and is
shown in Figure 9. For the period shown, the bifurcation parameter has been positive
91% of the time, corresponding to a bistable equilibrium market. However, the periods
for which this bifurcation parameter is negative do not show a statistically significant
deviation from the bistable pattern. This suggests that by the time the bifurcation
parameter has detected a single equilibrium state, the market has already bifurcated back
to the normal bistable states.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Empirical evidence suggests that most of the time both the stock and bond markets are
trend persistent (rather than mean regressing) drifting toward either a bull state
equilibrium rate of return or a bear state equilibrium. The relative stability of Bull and
Bear equilibrium states vary with the business cycle.
The non-stationary characteristic of market states has significant implications for
traders. Trading rules can be based on the trend persistent nature of conditional returns.
However, since the market process is non-stationary, an adaptive strategy is necessary
that can switch from trend persistent trading rules to mean regressing rules as the market
undergoes state transitions. Late stage periods of economic contraction appear to be least
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
16
efficient having the highest degree of trend persistence after moderate returns; early
stage periods of economic contraction have the greatest degree of trend persistence
following large returns.
Volume has also been shown to be a useful indicator of trend persistent markets.
Conditional returns following rising volume tend to exhibit above average trend
persistence. Therefore markets can be viewed as restructuring their information structure
in response to the volume of information arriving at any point in time.
The post Crash of 1929 and Crash of 2000 periods suggest that the bi-stable
disequilibrium markets can lead to extremes in valuation, resulting in instability and
structural changes in the aftermath of a crash. The empirical evidence suggests that
while bi-stable markets may often be self-correcting, at times the trend persistence may
result in valuation extremes. In response, it appears that the market undergoes
restructuring by switching to more stable, mean regressing rather then trend persistent
behavior.
REFERENCES
Beja, A., and M. B. Goldman. (1980). “On the Dynamic Behavior of Prices in
Disequilibrium.” Journal of Finance (May 1980): 235—47.
Beja, A., and N. H. Hakansson. (1977). “Dynamic Market Processes and Rewards to Up-
to-Date Information.” Journal of Finance (May 1977): 291 —304.
Black, S. V. (1976). “Rational Response to Shocks in a Dynamic Model of Capital Asset
Prices.” American Economic Review (December 1976): 767—79.
Boulding, K. E. (1981a). Ecodynamics: A New Theory of Societal Evolution. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications, 1981.
Boulding, K.E. (1981b) Evolutionary Economics. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. 1981.
Callen, E., and Shapero, D. (1974), "A Theory of Social Imitation," Physics Today, July,
1974.
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
17
Chauvet, Marcelle (1998a). "An Econometric Characterization of Business Cycle
Dynamics with Factor Structure and Regime Switching," International Economic Review,
1998, v39 (4, Nov), 969-996.
Chauvet, Marcelle (1998b). "Stock Market Fluctuations and the Business Cycle," Journal
of Economic and Social Measurement, 1998, v25 (3/4), 235-257.
Chauvet, Marcelle and Simon Potter (2000). "Coincident And Leading Indicators of the
Stock Market," Journal of Empirical Finance, 2000, v7 (1, May), 87-111.
Chauvet, Marcelle and Simon Potter (2001). “Nonlinear Risk,” Macroeconomic
Dynamics, Vol. 5, No. 4, (September 2001): 621-46.
Clark, P. B. (1973). “A Subordinated Stochastic Process Model with Finite Variance for
Security Prices.” Econometrica (January 1973): 135—55.
Cohen, K. J.: U. A. Hawawini; S. F. Maier; R. A. Schwarz; and D. K. Whitcomb (1980).
“Implications of Microstructure Theory for Empirical Research on Stock Price
Behavior.” Journal of Finance, (May 1980): 249—57.
Copeland, T. E. (1976) “A Model of Asset Trading Under the Assumption of Sequential
Information Arrival.” Journal of Finance (September 1976): 1149—68.
Cozzolino, J. M., and M.J. Zahner (1973). “The Maximum-Entropy Distribution of the
Future Market Price of a Stock.” Operations Research (1973): 1200—11.
DeStefano, M. (2004), “Stock Returns and the Business Cycle.” The Financial Review
Vol.39, No.4, November 2004, 527-547.
Dopfer, K., The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics, Cambridge University Press,
(2005).
Fama, Eugene F. (1970). “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical
Work.” Journal of Finance (May 1970): 383 —417.
Fama, Eugene F. and Kenneth R. French (1989). "Business Conditions and Expected
Returns on Stocks and Bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, 1989, v25 (1), 23-50.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971), Entropy Law and Economic Processes. Boston: Harvard
University Press, 1971.
Grossman, S. and J. Stiglitz (1976). “Information and Competitive Price Systems.”
American Economic Review (May 1976): 246—53.
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
18
Groth, J. (1979). “Security-Relative Information Market Efficiency: Some Empirical
Evidence.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (September l979): 573—93.
Guidolin, Massimo and Allan Timmermann (2005). “An Econometric Model of
Nonlinear Dynamics in the Joint Distribution of Stock and Bond Returns.” Forthcoming
in Journal of Applied Econometrics. 2005.
Haken, H. (1975). “Cooperative Phenomena in Systems Far From Thermal Equilibrium
and in Nonphysical Systems.” Review of Modern Physics, Vol. 47, No. 1 (January 1975):
68-119.
Hong, H., and Stein, J., “A unified theory of underreaction, momentum trading and
overreaction in asset markets”, Journal of Financial Economics, 41, 401 (1999)
Majthay, A. (1980). “Bifurcations in Dynamical Systems.” Decision Sciences (April
1980): 384—407.
Morse, D. (1980), “Asymmetrical Information in Securities Markets and Trading
Volume.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (December 1980): 1129—48.
Murphy, R. (1965). Adaptive Processes in Economic Systems. Academic Press, 1965.
Nawrocki, David (1984). "Entropy, Bifurcation, And Dynamic Market Disequilibrium,"
Financial Review, 1984, v19 (2), 266-284.
Nawrocki, David N. (1995). "Expectations, Technological Change, Information and the
Theory of Financial Markets," International Review of Financial Analysis, 1995, v4
(2/3), 85-105.
Nawrocki, David N. (1996) "Market Dependence and Economic Events," Financial
Review, 1996, v31 (2, May), 287-312.
Nicolis, G., and I. Prigogine (1977). Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems. John
Wiley and Sons, 1977.
Oldfield, G.; R. Rogalski; and R. Jarrow (1977). “An Autoregressive Jump Process for
Common Stock Returns.” Journal of Financial Economics (December 1977): 389—418.
Perez-Quiros, Gabriel and Allan Timmermann. "Firm Size and Cyclical Variations in
Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, 2000, v55 (3, Jun), 1229-1262.
Perez-Quiros, Gabriel and Allan Timmermann. "Business Cycle Asymmetries In Stock
Returns: Evidence from Higher Order Moments and Conditional Densities," Journal of
Econometrics, 2001, v103 (1-2, Jul), 259-306.
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
19
Philippatos, G., and N. Gressis (1975). “Conditions of Equivalence among EV, SSD and
EH Portfolio Selection Criteria: The Case for Uniform Normal and Lognormal
Distributions.” Management Science (February 1975): 617—25.
Philippatos, G., and C. Wilson (1972), “Entropy, Market Risk, and the Selection of
Efficient Portfolios.” Applied Economics (September 1972): 209—20.
Shiller, R. J., Irrational Exuberance, Princeton University Press (2000)
Schliefer, A., Inefficient Markets, An Introduction to Behavioral Finance, Oxford
University Press, (2000)
Thom, R. (1972), Structural Stability and Morphogenesis. Benjamin-Addison Wesley.
1972.
Vaga, Tonis. (1990). “The Coherent Market Hypothesis.” Financial Analysts Journal,
Vol. 46 (6), 36-49.
Weidlich, W. (1971), "The Statistical Description of Polarization Phenomena in
Society," British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 24, 1971.
Weidlich, W., and Haag, G. (1983), Concepts and Methods of a Quantitative Sociology,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983.
Whitelaw, Robert F. (1994). "Time Variations and Covariations in the Expectation and
Volatility of Stock Market Returns," Journal of Finance, 1994, v49 (2), 515-541.
Wyart, M., and Bouchaud, J. P., “Self-referential behavior, overreaction and conventions
in financial markets”, arXiv:cond-mat/0303584 v2 23 June 2003.
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
20
Conditional
Return
0.05% -0.23% 0.53% 0.32% 0.09% -0.05% -0.19% -0.08% -0.04% 0.03%
Standard
Deviation
4.13% 2.21% 2.46% 2.09% 1.67% 1.59% 1.54% 1.14% 0.97% 0.86%
Relative
Frequency
0.47% 0.21% 0.26% 0.50% 0.86% 1.64% 3.74% 8.46% 17.83% 28.20%
Prior Day
Return
R<-
4.25%
-4.00% -3.50% -3.00% -2.50% -2.00% -1.50% -1.00% -0.50% 0.00%
T-Test (p
of Null)
95.10% 46.31% 16.22% 17.69% 62.48% 37.36% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 99.40%
Conditional
Return
0.09% 0.13% 0.10% 0.05% 0.24% 0.04% -0.01% 0.18% -0.31% 0.30% -0.08%
Standard
Deviation
0.93% 1.02% 1.22% 1.52% 1.88% 1.52% 2.43% 1.82% 2.30% 2.79% 3.18%
Relative
Frequency
20.30% 9.68% 3.92% 1.71% 0.91% 0.37% 0.33% 0.18% 0.12% 0.10% 0.21%
Prior Day
Return
0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 5.00% R>5.25%
T-Test (p
of Null)
0.01% 0.00% 11.82% 79.42% 13.99% 92.08% 90.69% 62.26% 50.68% 68.04% 84.09%
Table 1. Dow Jones Industrial Average Conditional Returns and Volatility
(2-Jan-1930 to 13-Jan-05)
Conditional
Return
-0.24% 0.13% 0.42% 0.24% 0.09% -0.15% -0.28% -0.11% -0.05% 0.02%
Standard
Deviation
4.62% 1.75% 1.94% 1.76% 1.66% 1.47% 1.39% 1.10% 0.90% 0.81%
Relative
Frequency
0.23% 0.11% 0.14% 0.29% 0.64% 1.16% 2.84% 6.71% 14.57% 23.27%
Prior Day
Return
R<-
4.25%
-4.00% -3.50% -3.00% -2.50% -2.00% -1.50% -1.00% -0.50% 0.00%
T-Test (p
of Null)
70.52% 77.93% 30.38% 36.68% 66.59% 8.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 88.96%
Conditional
Return
0.10% 0.15% 0.11% 0.26% 0.16% 0.31% 0.11% 0.50% 0.48% 0.53% 0.07%
Standard
Deviation
0.82% 0.96% 1.03% 1.26% 1.23% 1.39% 1.77% 1.53% 1.41% 1.74% 3.69%
Relative
Frequency
16.49% 7.86% 2.92% 1.18% 0.59% 0.26% 0.21% 0.11% 0.06% 0.05% 0.06%
Prior Day
Return
0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 5.00% R>5.25%
T-Test (p
of Null)
0.00% 0.00% 6.57% 0.69% 27.01% 16.80% 76.24% 16.94% 28.62% 38.66% 97.11%
Table 2. Bistable State DJIA Conditional Returns and Volatility
(2-Jan-1930 to 13-Jan-05)
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
21
Conditional
Return
0.34% -0.64% 0.66% 0.42% 0.09% 0.17% 0.08% 0.01% -0.01% 0.04%
Standard
Deviation
3.62% 2.63% 3.03% 2.49% 1.71% 1.82% 1.91% 1.30% 1.26% 1.06%
Relative
Frequency
0.24% 0.10% 0.12% 0.21% 0.22% 0.48% 0.90% 1.75% 3.26% 4.92%
Prior Day
Return
R<-
4.25%
-4.00% -3.50% -3.00% -2.50% -2.00% -1.50% -1.00% -0.50% 0.00%
T-Test (p
of Null)
56.45% 28.41% 33.91% 32.13% 82.00% 46.04% 72.00% 80.91% 44.21% 77.53%
Conditional
Return
0.05% 0.04% 0.07% -0.42% 0.40% -0.56% -0.21% -0.37% -1.25% 0.02% -0.14%
Standard
Deviation
1.27% 1.24% 1.66% 1.91% 2.72% 1.64% 3.27% 2.21% 2.85% 3.86% 3.01%
Relative
Frequency
3.81% 1.81% 1.00% 0.53% 0.31% 0.11% 0.13% 0.06% 0.05% 0.04% 0.15%
Prior Day
Return
0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 5.00% R>5.25%
T-Test (p
of Null)
65.88% 87.95% 74.16% 2.28% 29.67% 11.53% 72.78% 54.49% 18.92% 99.69% 77.80%
Table 3. Linear State DJIA Conditional Returns and Volatility
(2-Jan-1930 to 13-Jan-05)
Stage I
= -111.1R
3
+ 1.91R
2
+ 0.132R + 0.0001
Stage II
= -403.6R
3
+ 2.85R
2
+ 0.219R - 0.0004
Stage III
= 18.79R
3
+ 6.57R
2
+ 0.136R - 0.0015
Stage IV
= -607.2R
3
- 2.77R
2
+ 0.393R + 0.0014
Stages I&II
= -293.4R
3
+ 2.56R
2
+ 0.184R - 0.0002
Stages III&IV
= 53.6R
3
+ 1.63R
2
+ 0.0889R - 9E-05
All DJIA
= -159.8 R
3
+ 2.225 R
2
+ 0.1134 R - 0.0002
Bistable
= -156.2 R
3
+ 2.572 R
2
+ 0.145 R - 0.0003
Linear
= -0.0905 R + 0.0005
Transition
= -119.0R
3
+ 1.116R
2
+ 0.0088R + 1E-05
k(R) = -a
3
R
3
-a
2
R
2
-a
1
R -a
0
Table 4. DJIA Conditional Return Map Best Fits for DeStephano (2004) Business
Cycle Stages (1948 - 2001)
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
22
Conditional
Return
0.32% -0.03% 0.40% -0.19% -0.16% -0.10% -0.22% -0.29% -0.05% 0.02%
Standard
Deviation
4.51% 2.09% 2.67% 1.49% 1.82% 1.23% 1.21% 1.16% 0.99% 1.02%
Relative
Frequency
0.25% 0.11% 0.12% 0.22% 0.35% 0.43% 0.68% 0.81% 0.97% 1.15%
Prior Day
Return
R < -
4.25%
-4.00% -3.50% -3.00% -2.50% -2.00% -1.50% -1.00% -0.50% 0.00%
T-Test (p
of Null)
65.10% 89.92% 51.81% 35.14% 42.28% 35.69% 2.18% 0.09% 32.44% 96.71%
Conditional
Return
0.10% 0.11% 0.24% 0.15% 0.52% -0.03% -0.39% 0.26% -0.40%
Standard
Deviation
0.97% 0.90% 1.02% 1.12% 2.28% 1.49% 1.53% 1.76% 2.33%
Relative
Frequency
1.88% 1.91% 1.22% 0.60% 0.40% 0.15% 0.14% 0.12% 0.23%
Prior Day
Return
0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% R>4.25%
T-Test (p
of Null)
17.47% 7.98% 0.16% 23.29% 6.23% 85.22% 17.02% 53.20% 22.89%
Table 5. Bistable State DJIA Conditional Returns and Volatility
After >+25% Prior Day Volume Increase (2-Jan-1930 to 13-Jan-05)
Conditional
Return
0.34% -0.64% 0.66% 0.42% 0.09% 0.17% 0.08% 0.01% -0.01% 0.04%
Standard
Deviation
3.62% 2.63% 3.03% 2.49% 1.71% 1.82% 1.91% 1.30% 1.26% 1.06%
Relative
Frequency
0.24% 0.10% 0.12% 0.21% 0.22% 0.48% 0.90% 1.75% 3.26% 4.92%
Prior Day
Return
R<-
4.25%
-4.00% -3.50% -3.00% -2.50% -2.00% -1.50% -1.00% -0.50% 0.00%
T-Test (p
of Null)
56.45% 28.41% 33.91% 32.13% 82.00% 46.04% 72.00% 80.91% 44.21% 77.53%
Conditional
Return
0.05% 0.04% 0.07% -0.42% 0.40% -0.56% -0.21% -0.37% -1.25% 0.02% -0.14%
Standard
Deviation
1.27% 1.24% 1.66% 1.91% 2.72% 1.64% 3.27% 2.21% 2.85% 3.86% 3.01%
Relative
Frequency
3.81% 1.81% 1.00% 0.53% 0.31% 0.11% 0.13% 0.06% 0.05% 0.04% 0.15%
Prior Day
Return
0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00% 4.50% 5.00% R>5.25%
T-Test (p
of Null)
65.88% 87.95% 74.16% 2.28% 29.67% 11.53% 72.78% 54.49% 18.92% 99.69% 77.80%
Table 6. Linear State DJIA Conditional Returns and Volatility
After >=25% Prior Day Volume Decline (2-Jan-1930 to 13-Jan-05)
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
23
Conditional
Return
-0.10% 0.09% 0.04% 0.03% -0.19% -0.09% -0.12% -0.11% 0.01%
Standard
Deviation
1.72% 1.49% 1.24% 1.10% 1.33% 1.08% 1.06% 0.91% 0.68%
Relative
Frequency
0.16% 0.17% 0.25% 0.79% 1.43% 3.54% 7.77% 17.73% 36.28%
Prior Day
Return
-4.00% -3.50% -3.00% -2.50% -2.00% -1.50% -1.00% -0.50% 0.00%
T-Test (p
of Null)
81.17% 81.32% 89.91% 85.55% 7.31% 10.73% 0.13% 0.00% 91.04%
Conditional
Return
0.09% 0.15% 0.14% 0.31% 0.02% 0.05% 0.26% 0.18%
Standard
Deviation
0.77% 1.02% 1.04% 1.35% 1.19% 1.85% 1.85% 1.47%
Relative
Frequency
17.89% 7.66% 3.20% 1.51% 0.80% 0.36% 0.18% 0.25%
Prior Day
Return
0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00%
T-Test (p
of Null)
0.00% 0.01% 1.83% 0.57% 89.65% 88.39% 55.94% 55.20%
Table 7. 10 Year US Treasury Conditional Returns and Volatility (1-Feb-1963 to
29-Apr-04)
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
24
Figure 1. Historical Conditional Returns and Volatility for the Dow Jones
Industrial Average
Historical Conditional Returns and Volatility
(Dow Jones Industrial Average: 1930 - 2005)
Volatility = 11.37R
2
- 0.0294R + 0.0099
r
2
= 0.898
k(R) = -159.8R
3
+ 2.224R
2
+ 0.1134R - 0.0002
r
2
= 0.89
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
-4.0%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
Prior Day Return R(0)
A
ver
ag
e
N
ext
D
ay
R
et
u
rn
R
(t
) an
d
V
o
la
ti
lit
y
Dow Jones Industrials Conditional Returns
(1930 - 2005)
Volatility of Return
Poly. (Volatility of Return)
Poly. (Dow Jones Industrials Conditional
Returns (1930 - 2005))
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
25
Figure 2. Dow Jones Industrial Average Bifurcation Parameter
Bifurcation Parameter Dow Jones Industrial Average
-120%
-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Jan-30
Dec-39
Dec-49
Dec-59
Dec-69
Dec-79
Dec-89
Dec-99
Time
B
if
u
rcat
io
n
P
ar
am
et
er
Bifurcation Parameter
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
26
Figure 3. Bi-stable Market Conditional Returns and Volatility
Single State Markets: Conditional Returns and Volatility
(Dow Jones Industrial Average: 1930 - 2005)
k(R) = -0.0905R + 0.0005
r
2
= 0.44
Volatility = 14.00R
2
+ 0.0086R + 0.0123
r
2
= 0.76
-1.0%
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
-4.0%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
Prior Day Return R(0)
A
ve
ra
g
e
N
e
xt
D
a
y R
et
u
rn
R
(t
) an
d
V
o
la
tilit
y
Dow Jones Industrials Conditional Returns
(1930 - 2005)
Volatility of Return
Linear (Dow Jones Industrials Conditional
Returns (1930 - 2005))
Poly. (Volatility of Return)
Bistable Markets: Conditional Returns and Volatility
(Dow Jones Industrial Average: 1930 - 2005)
k(R) = -156.2R
3
+ 2.572R
2
+ 0.145R - 0.0003
r
2
= 0.86
Volatility = 7.709R
2
- 0.056R + 0.0094
r
2
= 0.92
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
-4.0%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
Prior Day Return R(0)
A
ver
ag
e N
ext
D
ay R
et
u
rn
R
(t
) a
n
d
V
o
la
tili
ty
Dow Jones Industrials Conditional Returns
(1930 - 2005)
Volatility of Return
Poly. (Dow Jones Industrials Conditional
Returns (1930 - 2005))
Poly. (Volatility of Return)
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
27
Figure 4. Single Equilibrium Market Conditional Returns and Volatility
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
28
Figure 5. Business Cycle Stages I-IV DJIA Conditional Returns and Volatility
DJIA Conditional Returns During Business Cycle Stages
-0.8%
-0.6%
-0.4%
-0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
-4.0%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
Prior Day Return, R(0)
C
o
n
d
it
io
n
al R
et
u
rn
Stage I
Stage II
Stage III
Stage IV
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
29
Figure 6. Conditional Returns Following Rising Volume Exhibit Bistable, Trend
Persistent Behavior
Figure 7. Conditional Returns Following Declining Volume Exhibit Single State,
Mean Regressive Behavior
Dow Jones Industrial Average
(Returns After 25% Volume Increase)
k(R) = -151.38R
3
+ 1.2187R
2
+ 0.1558R - 3E-05
r
2
= 0.78
-0.40%
-0.20%
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
Prior Day Return, R(0)
N
e
x
t Da
y
Re
tu
rn
, R(
t)
Conditional Returns on Rising
Volume
Poly. (Conditional Returns on
Rising Volume)
Dow Jones Industrial Average
(Returns After 25% Volume Decline)
k(R) = -0.329R + 0.0015
r
2
= 0.53
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
Prior Day Return, R(0)
Next Da
y
Return, R(t)
Conditional Returns on Declining
Volume
Linear (Conditional Returns on
Declining Volume)
A Bifurcation Model of Non-Stationary Markets
December 2006
30
Figure 8. 10 Year US Treasury Bond Market Conditional Returns and Volatility
Figure 9. 10 Year US Treasury Bond Bifurcation Parameter
10 Year Treasury Bifurcation Parameter
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Ja
n
-63
Ja
n
-65
Ja
n
-67
Ja
n
-69
Ja
n
-71
Ja
n
-73
Ja
n
-75
Ja
n
-77
Ja
n
-79
Ja
n
-81
Ja
n
-83
Ja
n
-85
Ja
n
-87
Ja
n
-89
Ja
n
-91
Ja
n
-93
Ja
n
-95
Ja
n
-97
Ja
n
-99
Ja
n
-01
Ja
n
-03
10 Year US Treasury Bonds (1962 - 2003)
Volatility = 7.16R
2
+ 0.0422R + 0.0087
r
2
= 0.70
k(R) = -174.0R
3
+ 0.459R
2
+ 0.1475R + 8E-05
r
2
= 0.77
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
-4.0%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
Prior Day Rate Change (R)
C
o
n
d
itio
n
a
l R
a
te
C
h
a
n
g
e
a
n
d
V
o
la
tility
Conditional Returns
Volatility
Poly. (Volatility)
Poly. (Conditional Returns)