US 10-City Composite Historical Replay: 2004-12 to 2007-05
Replay the US 10-city composite from December 2004 through May 2007 across 30 monthly bars, navigating a peak with only a 3.4% drawdown. You step through bubble-era decision points one month at a time and receive an AI coach review of each simulated choice.
30 monthly bars · 6 decision points · 2004-12 to 2007-05 · Property
Key facts
Peak-to-trough drawdown of 3.4% with a 18.3% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −3.4%
- Max run-up
- +18.3%
- Largest single-month move
- +1.8%
- 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 December 2004 as a defining force in the American economy. The 10-city composite index tracked a nationwide phenomenon that had lifted home prices to historic heights. Over the next 30 months, through May 2007, participants navigate the treacherous final act of a bubble that would soon implode, learning what it means to manage positions when the market itself seems disconnected from reality.
The numbers reveal a market that appeared remarkably stable even as it teetered toward reversal. From 191.76 to 219.28, the index rose a seemingly modest 14.4% across 30 monthly bars. Yet this gentle climb masked dangerous undercurrents—maximum drawdown remained a contained 3.4% while the largest single monthly move reached just 1.8%. Six decision points, two deemed critical, punctuated this period, each demanding participants choose between anchoring to momentum or anticipating the inevitable turn.
This replay trains the critical skill of reading stability as potential danger. In bubble environments, low volatility and steady gains lull participants into complacence. The 2000s housing scenario forces confrontation with the psychology of denial: when the numbers look fine, why exit? Here, the teaching is not about predicting the crash, but about building processes that account for periods when apparent calm masks structural fragility. Participants learn that disciplined risk management means acting on probability, not proof.