FORECASTING THE UZBEK SOM BASED ON ARIMA–GARCH–MONTE CARLO MODELS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60078/2992-877X-2026-vol4-iss6-pp102-119Abstract
Accurate exchange rate forecasting is of considerable practical importance for emerging and frontier markets. In such markets, exchange rates tend to exhibit high volatility and may fluctuate significantly due to depreciation pressures, external economic shocks, inflation differentials, and uncertainty in financial markets. This study employs the ARIMA–eGARCH–Monte Carlo modeling framework to forecast the USD/UZS exchange rate. The analysis is based on daily exchange rate data covering the period from January 2018 to April 2026. First, logarithmic exchange rate returns were calculated, and their stationarity was examined using the Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF), Phillips–Perron (PP), and KPSS tests. Subsequently, the ARIMA model was employed to capture the conditional mean dynamics of exchange rate returns, while sGARCH, eGARCH, and gjrGARCH models were compared to evaluate volatility clustering and asymmetric shock effects. The empirical results identified the eGARCH(1,1) specification as the best-performing model. In the next stage, 50,000 Monte Carlo simulations were conducted based on the selected model to generate exchange rate forecasts for a 252-trading-day horizon. The simulation results provided probability-based scenarios for the future path of the USD/UZS exchange rate over the following year. The baseline median forecast indicated an exchange rate of UZS 12,518 per US dollar, while the 90% prediction interval ranged from UZS 11,621 to UZS 13,218. The findings suggest that depreciation shocks have a significant impact on the dynamics of the USD/UZS exchange rate and that probability-based forecasting provides a more informative assessment of future exchange rate movements than conventional point forecasts. The proposed approach offers practical implications for the Central Bank, commercial banks, export-import enterprises, and risk managers in assessing foreign exchange risk and conducting stress testing.
Keywords:
USD/UZS exchange rate exchange rate forecasting ARIMA model eGARCH model Monte Carlo simulation volatility depreciation riskReferences
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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.









