Collapse · Straits Times Index (1997)
Step into the Straits Times Index collapse from July 1997 to February 1998, a drawdown that swallowed 45.8%. Replay the crisis day by day, weigh 25 critical policy-driven decision points, and receive an AI coach review of your simulated judgment.
146 daily bars · 25 decision points · 1997-07 to 1998-02 · Stocks
Key facts
This window spans 212 days with a peak-to-trough drawdown of 45.8% and a 51.0% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −45.8%
- Max run-up
- +51.0%
- Duration
- 212 days
- Largest single-day move
- +13.7%
- Bars
- 146 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 July 1997 and February 1998, the Straits Times Index stepped into one of the most punishing stretches of the Asian financial crisis. The setup was a Singapore equity market already exposed to regional contagion, with currency stress across Southeast Asia feeding into policy uncertainty about interest rates, capital controls, and the pace of regional reform. For anyone trading or allocating capital in that window, the question was not whether volatility would arrive, but how to think clearly while it did. This is the replay room that scenario opens up.
What followed on the tape was severe. From a close of 1954.6 on 1997-07-14, the index slid to 1621.3 by 1998-02-11, a move of -17.1% across 146 daily bars. Beneath that headline, the damage was deeper: the maximum drawdown reached 45.8%, and the largest single-bar swing registered 13.7%, evidence of the gap-driven, headline-driven behavior that policy shocks tend to produce. Twenty-five decision points punctuate the stretch, with nine flagged as critical — the moments where a policy announcement, a regional rate decision, or a sentiment break could either compound a loss or test a discipline already in place.
The training value lies less in predicting the path than in rehearsing the process. Replaying day by day forces the participant to distinguish between information that genuinely changes a thesis and noise that simply amplifies fear, to size risk around a 45.8% drawdown rather than around a tidy -17.1% endpoint, and to write down the rule that justifies each of the 25 decisions before emotion rewrites it. The takeaway is procedural: policy-driven collapses punish certainty, reward pre-committed rules, and leave the most lasting lessons in how a portfolio was governed when the largest single-bar moves landed.