US National (FHFA, 1975Q1+) Historical Replay: 2000-01 to 2007-04
Replay the US housing market across 30 monthly bars from January 2000 to April 2007 as the FHFA index climbed 65.3%. You step through each authentic trading day, face 6 decision points including 2 critical ones, and receive an AI coach review in a simulated educational environment.
30 monthly bars · 6 decision points · 2000-01 to 2007-04 · Property
Key facts
Peak-to-trough drawdown of 0.1% with a 65.4% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −0.1%
- Max run-up
- +65.4%
- Largest single-month move
- +3.8%
- 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 US housing market entered 2000 with the FHFA national index sitting at 229.89. Over the next seven years, this index would trace one of the most dramatic bull markets in residential real estate history, climbing to 380.07 by April 2007—a 65.3% appreciation that reshaped household wealth and lending practices across the country. Participants in this replay face the challenge of navigating an extended uptrend where the absence of meaningful corrections created an illusion of perpetual stability. With six decision points including two critical junctures, the scenario captures the psychological difficulty of maintaining disciplined risk management in an environment where every dip seemed to be bought.
The price trajectory unfolded across 30 monthly bars, with the largest single-bar move reaching 3.8%—a modest advance that accumulated into substantial gains. The maximum drawdown of just 0.1% over this period is striking: traditional volatility-based stop strategies would have been repeatedly whipsawed, while trend-following approaches would have remained engaged throughout. The consistency of gains masked growing imbalances in leverage, underwriting standards, and asset allocation that would eventually prove unsustainable.
This replay teaches that low measured volatility does not equal low risk, and that historical periods carry embedded survivorship bias. Participants practice the discipline of questioning consensus narratives, sizing positions appropriately for tail scenarios, and reviewing decisions against original thesis rather than trailing price action. The scenario is designed for educational exploration of process, not prediction of future outcomes.