OʻZBEKISTON SOʻMINI ARIMA–GARCH–MONTE-KARLO MODELLARI ASOSIDA PROGNOZ QILISH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60078/2992-877X-2026-vol4-iss6-pp102-119Annotasiya
Valyuta kursini aniq prognoz qilish rivojlanayotgan va chegaraviy bozorlar uchun muhim amaliy ahamiyatga ega. Chunki bunday bozorlarda valyuta kurslari tez oʻzgaruvchan boʻlib, devalvatsiya bosimlari, tashqi iqtisodiy shoklar, inflyatsiya tafovutlari va moliya bozoridagi noaniqliklar taʼsirida keskin tebranishi mumkin. Ushbu maqolada AQSh dollarining Oʻzbekiston soʻmiga nisbatan kursini prognozlash uchun ARIMA–eGARCH–Monte-Karlo modellari qoʻllanildi. Tadqiqot 2018-yil yanvardan 2026-yil aprelgacha boʻlgan kunlik USD/UZS kursi maʼlumotlariga asoslandi. Dastlab valyuta kursining logarifmik daromadlari hisoblanib, ularning statsionarligi ADF, Phillips–Perron va KPSS testlari yordamida tekshirildi. Shundan soʻng kurs daromadlarining oʻrtacha dinamikasini baholash uchun ARIMA modeli, oʻzgaruvchanlikning klasterlanishi va asimmetrik shoklarni baholash uchun esa GARCH oilasiga mansub eGARCH, eGARCH va GARCH modellari natijalari taqqoslandi. Model natijalariga koʻra, eGARCH (1,1) modeli eng maqbul model sifatida tanlandi. Keyingi bosqichda ushbu model asosida 252 savdo kuni uchun Monte-Karlo simulyatsiyasi usulidan foydalanib 50 000 ta ssenariy asosida prognoz qiymatlari ishlab chiqildi. Natijalar USD/UZS kursining kelgusi bir yillik ehtimollik ssenariylarini shakllantirish imkonini berdi. Bazaviy median prognoz bir AQSh dollari uchun 12 518 soʻmni tashkil etdi, 90 foizlik ehtimollik oraligʻi esa 11 621 soʻmdan 13 218 soʻmgacha boʻlgan diapazonni qamrab oldi. Tadqiqot natijalari USD/UZS kursida devalvatsiya shoklari oʻxgarishiga sezilarli taʼsir koʻrsatishini va valyuta kursini baholashda oddiy nuqtali prognozdan koʻra ehtimollik asosidagi stsenariylar samaraliroq ekanligini koʻrsatadi. Ushbu yondashuv markaziy bank, tijorat banklari, eksport-import korxonalari va risk-menejerlar uchun valyuta risklarini baholash va stress-testlashda amaliy ahamiyatga ega.
Kalit so‘zlar:
USD/UZS kursi valyuta kursini prognozlash ARIMA modeli eGARCH modeli Monte-Karlo simulyatsiyasi oʻzgaruvchanlik devalvatsiya riskiBibliografik manbalar
Bauwens, L., Laurent, S., & Rombouts, J. V. K. (2006). Multivariate GARCH models: A survey. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 21(1), 79 – 109.
Black, F. (1976). Studies of stock price volatility changes. Proceedings of the 1976 Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Business and Economics Statistics Section, 177–181.
Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31(3), 307–327.
Bollerslev, T. (1987). A conditionally heteroskedastic time series model for speculative prices and rates of return. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(3), 542–547.
Bollerslev, T., Chou, R. Y., & Kroner, K. F. (1992). ARCH modeling in finance: A review of the theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Econometrics, 52(1–2), 5–59.
Cheung, Y.-W., Chinn, M. D., & Garcia Pascual, A. (2005). Empirical exchange rate models of the nineties: Are any fit to survive? Journal of International Money and Finance, 24(7), 1150–1175.
Chkili, W., Aloui, C., & Nguyen, D. K. (2012). Asymmetric effects and long memory in dynamic volatility relationships between stock returns and exchange rates. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 22(4), 738–757.
Christoffersen, P. F. (1998). Evaluating interval forecasts. International Economic Review, 39(4), 841–862.
Diebold, F. X., & Mariano, R. S. (1995). Comparing predictive accuracy. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(3), 253–263.
Engel, C., Mark, N. C., & West, K. D. (2007). Exchange rate models are not as bad as you think. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 22, 381–441.
Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987–1007.
Engle, R. F., & Manganelli, S. (2004). CAViaR: Conditional autoregressive value at risk by regression quantiles. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 22(4), 367–381.
Glosten, L. R., Jagannathan, R., & Runkle, D. E. (1993). On the relation between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks. The Journal of Finance, 48(5), 1779–1801.
Hansen, P. R., & Lunde, A. (2005). A forecast comparison of volatility models: Does anything beat a GARCH(1,1)? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20(7), 873–889.
Hyndman, R. J., & Khandakar, Y. (2008). Automatic time series forecasting: The forecast package for R. Journal of Statistical Software, 27(3), 1–22.
Kupiec, P. H. (1995). Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models. The Journal of Derivatives, 3(2), 73–84.
McMillan, D. G., & Speight, A. E. H. (2001). Non-Fourier estimation of exchange rate volatility. Applied Economics Letters, 8(5), 313–318.
Meese, R. A., & Rogoff, K. (1983). Empirical exchange rate models of the seventies: Do they fit out of sample? Journal of International Economics, 14(1–2), 3–24.
Nelson, D. B. (1991). Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: A new approach. Econometrica, 59(2), 347–370.
Rossi, B. (2013). Exchange rate predictability. Journal of Economic Literature, 51(4), 1063–1119.
Su, C. (2010). Application of EGARCH model to estimate financial volatility of daily returns: The empirical case of China. University of Gothenburg, Masterʼs Thesis.
