Crash · Straits Times Index (1997)
Asia's 1997 storm battered the Straits Times Index, erasing 39.6% as it slid from 2041.4 to 1233.4 across 144 brutal trading days. Replay each session, face 25 critical decision points, and let the AI coach review your simulated choices for purely educational insight.
144 daily bars · 25 decision points · 1997-06 to 1998-01 · Stocks
Key facts
This window spans 205 days with a peak-to-trough drawdown of 47.4% and a 17.1% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −47.4%
- Max run-up
- +17.1%
- Duration
- 205 days
- Largest single-day move
- −8.7%
- Bars
- 144 Daily bars
- Decision points
- 25
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 June 1997 and January 1998, the Straits Times Index walked into one of the most punishing Asian equity selloffs of the modern era. Singapore investors had grown accustomed to steady compounding, and the index opened the window at 2041.4, a level that still reflected confidence in regional growth. The policy backdrop, from currency stress across Southeast Asia to abrupt shifts in monetary stance, meant that valuations were no longer anchored by familiar assumptions. What was at stake was not a single sector but the credibility of an entire growth model that had attracted global capital for years.
Over the next 144 trading days, the index collapsed to 1233.4, a peak-to-trough decline of 39.6% and a maximum drawdown of 47.4% that swallowed paper portfolios and forced hard questions about diversification. Volatility spiked to the point where the largest single-bar move reached 8.7%, meaning a single session could erase months of gains. The path was not a straight line down; it was a sequence of false rallies, policy rumors, and abrupt reversals that punished anyone who assumed the worst was over. With 25 decision points, nine of them critical, every participant had to choose between cutting exposure, holding for recovery, or adding into the fear.
The educational value of replaying this period lies less in the final percentage than in the process it forces you to confront. Each morning demands a fresh read on risk, a written reason for any position change, and an honest accounting of how fear or overconfidence is shaping the next click. The drawdown numbers teach humility about sizing, while the 8.7% single-day swings illustrate how quickly a disciplined plan can be tested by reality. Treating the replay as a journal of decisions, rather than a hunt for the perfect call, is what converts a historic crash into durable training for future uncertainty.