Minneapolis Historical Replay: 2004-12 to 2007-05
From December 2004 to May 2007, Minneapolis property prices climbed a modest 2.4%, masking quiet volatility. Step through 30 monthly bars, tackle six decision points, and receive an AI coach review in this simulated historical replay.
30 monthly bars · 6 decision points · 2004-12 to 2007-05 · Property
Key facts
Peak-to-trough drawdown of 3.9% with a 6.6% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −3.9%
- Max run-up
- +6.6%
- Largest single-month move
- +1.0%
- 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
Between December 2004 and May 2007, the Minneapolis residential property market entered a period that seemed deceptively benign. Over 30 monthly bars, national housing was still riding the tailwinds of easy credit and rising optimism, yet regional markets like this one were already showing signs of uneven momentum. For decision trainees, the period posed a subtle question: how do you maintain disciplined process when headline returns look tame and volatility appears muted?
The numbers reveal what the surface obscured. The market closed the period at 164.4 from a starting point of 160.49, delivering a modest 2.4% return. Yet the maximum drawdown reached 3.9%, and the largest single monthly move hit just 1.0%, suggesting that gains were hard-won and losses came in sudden pockets. Six decision points were embedded in the data, with two marked as critical junctures where directional conviction would be tested. The gap between the headline return and the underlying turbulence is the central tension of this replay.
The scenario rewards trainees who focus on process rather than outcome. A 2.4% gain could easily breed complacency, but the 3.9% drawdown reminds us that even quiet markets exact a psychological toll. Handling six decision points requires a repeatable framework, not reactive intuition. The lesson is clear: stable-looking markets often contain hidden volatility, and disciplined risk management matters most when the stakes feel lowest.