War · Straits Times Index (2003)
Trade the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War across 150 daily bars as Singapore's Straits Times Index falls 8.4% to 1338.6. You replay each session, face 26 decision points, and receive an AI coach review of your choices in this simulated market-replay training.
150 daily bars · 26 decision points · 2002-10 to 2003-05 · Stocks
Key facts
This window spans 222 days with a peak-to-trough drawdown of 17.9% and a 10.3% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −17.9%
- Max run-up
- +10.3%
- Duration
- 222 days
- Largest single-day move
- −3.8%
- 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
Singapore's Straits Times Index entered October 2002 amid one of the most charged geopolitical climates of the decade. The United States had begun positioning forces in the Persian Gulf, and the threat of military action against Iraq dominated global headlines. For Singapore, a small open economy deeply integrated into global trade, the prospect of another Gulf War created profound uncertainty across equity markets. The STI was about to navigate seven months of sustained tension that would test the resolve of every participant in the market. The 150 daily bars from 2002-10-18 to 2003-05-28 captured a period when headlines moved markets as much as earnings reports, and the fog of geopolitical risk made traditional valuation metrics seem almost secondary.
What unfolded was a grinding decline from 1461.39 to 1338.6, an 8.4% fall that understates the true stress placed on portfolios during this era. The maximum drawdown reached 17.9%, meaning anyone caught fully invested at the wrong moment experienced losses nearly double the headline percentage. The largest single-bar move of 3.8% on any given day was enough to swing positions dramatically, illustrating how geopolitical events can produce sudden, sharp dislocations that defy the calmer rhythms of ordinary trading. Across these 150 sessions, traders faced 26 decision points, nine of which were critical junctions where the difference between hedging, reducing exposure, or standing pat carried outsized consequences for outcomes.
This replay teaches that geopolitical risk demands a disciplined process rather than reactive instinct. The 17.9% drawdown reminds us that headline uncertainty can persist long enough to erode even patient positions, making position sizing and risk limits essential guardrails. The 26 decision points show how compressed uncertainty creates frequent crossroads, each requiring traders to articulate their thesis, set their boundaries, and stick to them when anxiety peaks. Psychology matters here: the instinct to sell at the bottom or overweight risk during apparent calm both represent the same failure to separate process from emotion. This scenario trains participants to recognize that in war-time market conditions, survival and disciplined execution matter more than prediction.