Minneapolis Historical Replay: 1996-03 to 1998-08
Replay 30 monthly bars of Minneapolis property data from March 1996 to August 1998, capturing a steady 13.6% climb with minimal 0.6% drawdowns. Navigate six decision points, including two critical calls, and receive an AI coach review of your simulated, educational choices.
30 monthly bars · 6 decision points · 1996-03 to 1998-08 · Property
Key facts
Peak-to-trough drawdown of 0.6% with a 13.6% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −0.6%
- Max run-up
- +13.6%
- Largest single-month move
- +2.1%
- Bars
- 30 Monthly bars
- Decision points
- 6
Every figure above is computed programmatically from this replay’s own candle series — no editorial input, no LLM. Methodology: Methodology
The market advances day by day. You only see candles up to the current day — as if you were really there.
At key decision points choose Buy / Trim / Exit / Hold. Each decision advances the timeline by one day.
After settlement you get a six-dimension score and an AI coach review. Your result enters the scenario leaderboard.
Event Replay
What happened — and what it teaches
The Minneapolis property market in the early 1990s offered a study in steady appreciation during a transformative decade. This replay spans 30 monthly bars from March 1996 to August 1998, a period when the city was experiencing post-recession recovery and population growth. Participants navigate six decision points, including two critical calls that test timing and conviction, against a backdrop of moderate economic expansion in the American Midwest.
The data reveals a 13.6% climb from 76.5 to 86.88 over the 30-month window. What stands out is the discipline of this advance—maximum drawdown held at just 0.6%, and the largest single monthly move reached only 2.1%. This low-volatility trajectory presented its own challenge: staying committed through gradual appreciation rather than dramatic swings that might otherwise justify action.
This scenario trains participants to manage patience in quiet markets and avoid forcing intervention where none is needed. The minimal drawdown underscores the importance of position sizing and the psychological resilience required to ride steady, modest gains. Two critical decision points specifically test whether learners can distinguish between meaningful signals and market noise in a stable upward trend.