Bubble · FTSE 100 Index (2000)
Replay 150 daily bars of the FTSE 100 from October 1999 to May 2000, a stretch that erased 13.5% at its worst. Walk through 26 decision points, including 9 critical ones, and get an AI coach review of your calls in a simulated environment.
150 daily bars · 26 decision points · 1999-10 to 2000-05 · Stocks
Key facts
This window spans 218 days with a peak-to-trough drawdown of 13.5% and a 18.1% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −13.5%
- Max run-up
- +18.1%
- Duration
- 218 days
- Largest single-day move
- −3.8%
- Bars
- 150 Daily bars
- Decision points
- 26
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 FTSE 100 in the final months of the 1990s presented a paradox: indices were touching historic highs even as the dot-com frenzy rewrote the rules of valuation. From 1999-10-11 to 2000-05-16, this replay spans 150 daily bars that captured the market at a crossroads, with 26 decision points—9 deemed critical—forcing participants to act when momentum and caution pulled in opposite directions. The stakes were not merely about returns; they were about calibrating judgment under the duress of a bubble that most knew was unsustainable but could not time.
What unfolded over those months was a study in deceptive stability. The index eked out a modest 1.3% gain, closing at 6318.4 from 6234.8, yet this surface calm concealed a 13.5% maximum drawdown—the market's true volatility lurking beneath. A single trading session could deliver a 3.8% swing, reminding participants that peak confidence often precedes peak risk. Those who mistook calm price action for safety found their assumptions tested; those who respected the underlying turbulence were better positioned to survive the eventual unwinding.
This scenario's value lies not in predicting outcomes but in exposing decision-making failures under structural uncertainty. The 26 choices, particularly the 9 critical junctures, mirror real pressure points—where to add risk, when to cut it, and how to weigh incomplete information against conviction. The largest single-day moves tested emotional discipline; the prolonged drawdown challenged patience. By replaying this episode, participants confront their own biases: Do they chase momentum or fight it? Do they size positions based on confidence or fear? The bubble's aftermath provides no absolute answers, only sharper questions about process, position management, and the psychology of risk when consensus optimism masks underlying fragility.