Bubble · Straits Times Index (2000)
Ride the dot-com euphoria into a 30.5% Singapore drawdown as the Straits Times Index slides from 2372.11 to 2092.63 across 146 days. Step through each bar, tackle 25 decision points, and let the AI coach grade your simulated calls.
146 daily bars · 25 decision points · 1999-12 to 2000-07 · Stocks
Key facts
This window spans 211 days with a peak-to-trough drawdown of 30.5% and a 16.6% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −30.5%
- Max run-up
- +16.6%
- Duration
- 211 days
- Largest single-day move
- −8.7%
- 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
The scene opens on 9 December 1999, deep in the final months of the dot-com euphoria that had swept global markets through the late 1990s. Singapore's Straits Times Index stood at 2372.11, riding the wave of technology optimism that defined that era. The next 146 trading days would test whether investors could distinguish between sustainable growth and speculative excess, as the index faced mounting pressures from both local and international forces.
The numbers tell a sobering story. By 7 July 2000, the index had retreated to 2092.63, a decline of -11.8%. More striking was the maximum drawdown of 30.5% from peak to trough, exposing the depth of vulnerability beneath the surface optimism. The largest single-bar move of 8.7% during this period served as a stark reminder that volatility does not announce itself politely. Participants faced 25 decision points, nine of them critical moments where positioning and risk management made the difference between compounding losses or preserving capital.
For decision trainers, this replay offers a clinic in navigating uncertainty without hindsight. The lesson is not about calling the top but about building processes resilient enough to survive a 30.5% drawdown. How much exposure is acceptable when momentum can reverse violently? When does conviction become stubbornness? These are the questions that replay participants must confront, receiving AI-graded feedback on their simulated calls and learning to separate outcome from process in a market that punished even reasonable assumptions with brutal efficiency.