**Title: Forecasting Malaysian Ringgit Using Exponential Smoothing Techniques**

The Reviewer A comments and responses by authors:

1.  The article title and topic is suitable to the theme of the journal. Agree - The title and topic presented is suitable to the journal's theme.

Author response: Thank you for agreeing.

2.  The abstract accurately reflects the content. Agree.

Author response: Thank you for agreeing.

3.  The purported significance of the article is clearly stated in the **Introduction.** Disagree.

Author response: Thank you the suggestion. The significance of the article has clearly explained.

4.  The article adequately ties to the **relevant literature** and **references.** Agree (Literature reviews in the article are somewhat adequate)

Author response: Thank you for agreeing.

5.  The **research methodology** is sound, suitable and appropriate. Neutral (Discussed methods need improvements and might be outdated).

Author response: Thank you for agreeing. The methodology has been updated.

6.  The writing is clear, concise and free of obvious grammatical error. 3 - Neutral (flow issues in certain paragraphs, some spelling errors)

Author response: Thank you for agreeing.

7.  Results  are consistent with aim of the study, and are presented clearly. 3 - Agree (Results of the study are somewhat presented clearly with minor flow issues).

Author response: Thank you. The results has been updated.

8.  The conclusions or summary are accurate and supported by the content. 2 – Disagree. Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. The conclusions has been updated.

9.  There are issues on spelling errors. Use Grammarly to check.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. The journal has been proof read.

10. Methodology  
    \- pls explain in details the process of evaluating forecast accuracy especially in data partitioning (please refer Forecasting: Principles and Practice by Prof Rob J Hyndman)

Author response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Accordingly, we updated the methology part by including the detail explaination on evaluating the forecast values.

11. The forecast values for next 12 months is not provided just a single value for August 2019 (RM 4.30226). pls explain.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We appreciate the comment. The updated forecast values for Holt’s method have been shown. However, the other two methods which are Single Exponential Smoothing and Double Exponential Smoothing, the forecast values are not relevant to be shown as they are not the best model. So we decide to stay as it is.

12. Pls use two or more error measures to ensure more variability in choosing the best model.

Author response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Accordingly, we constructed the other technique of error measure which is MAPE to evaluate the models.