Default · KOSPI Index (1997)
Step into 150 trading days on the KOSPI Index, where a 14.4% drawdown and a 4.5% single-day surge tested every market nerve. Replay each session, navigate 26 decision points, and receive an AI coach review of your simulated choices for purely educational practice.
150 daily bars · 26 decision points · 1996-12 to 1997-07 · Stocks
Key facts
This window spans 224 days with a peak-to-trough drawdown of 14.4% and a 29.7% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −14.4%
- Max run-up
- +29.7%
- Duration
- 224 days
- Largest single-day move
- +4.5%
- 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
In the closing months of 1996, the Korean economy faced mounting pressures as major conglomerates struggled with debt loads that would eventually reshape the nation's corporate landscape. The KOSPI Index, Korea's flagship stock market gauge, entered a period of acute uncertainty that would test the resilience of every market participant. This replay scenario spans 150 trading days from December 11, 1996 through July 23, 1997, capturing the volatile aftermath of Hanbo Steel's default — an event that signaled deeper structural vulnerabilities in the Korean financial system.
The index opened at 704.68 and closed at 730.58, delivering a modest 3.7% gain over the period. Yet this headline figure obscures the turbulence beneath the surface. A 14.4% maximum drawdown carved through portfolios, while the largest single-day move of 4.5% illustrated how quickly sentiment could shift. Investors navigating these 26 decision points, 9 of which proved critical, confronted an environment where day-to-day volatility demanded constant recalibration of positions and risk exposure.
This scenario distills essential lessons for market participants. It teaches the importance of distinguishing between noise and signal — recognizing when price action reflects temporary panic versus fundamental deterioration. The dramatic drawdown tests risk discipline, forcing participants to confront whether their pre-defined rules would hold under pressure. Psychologically, it reveals how extreme volatility can erode conviction, making process-driven decision-making the cornerstone of survival. For educational practice, replaying these sessions allows participants to experience the weight of uncertainty without financial consequence, building the mental resilience necessary for navigating genuine market crises.
Featured in the archive