Technology Sel SPDR Downtrend Replay (2001-02-15 to 2001-03-02)
Replay the 2001 XLK technology ETF correction across 30 daily bars where the close fell from 18.64 to 13.01, a 30.2% slide. Step through each session, weigh seven decision points, and receive an AI coach review of your simulated choices.
30 daily bars · 7 decision points · 2001-02 to 2001-03 · Stocks
Key facts
This window spans 42 days with a peak-to-trough drawdown of 31.1% and a 6.6% run-up.
- Max drawdown
- −31.1%
- Max run-up
- +6.6%
- Duration
- 42 days
- Largest single-day move
- −6.5%
- Bars
- 30 Daily bars
- Decision points
- 7
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
In February 2001 the Technology Select Sector SPDR (XLK) found itself in the crosshairs of a sustained correction that had already devastated the dot-com era. The 2000s decade had just witnessed the bursting of the internet bubble, and tech investors were navigating unprecedented uncertainty as valuations collapsed across the sector. This replay spans 30 daily bars and challenges participants to make decisions through a brutal downtrend, testing whether they could adapt when the broader tech narrative shifted against them.
Between early February and mid-March 2001, XLK's closing price collapsed from 18.64 to 13.01, representing a 30.2% decline. The maximum drawdown reached 31.1%, meaning any participant entering near the peak would have endured losses exceeding three times the largest single-session move of 6.5%. Seven decision points punctuate the slide, three of them critical inflection moments where the difference between holding, reducing exposure, or doubling down carried substantial portfolio consequences.
This scenario distills lessons in process discipline, risk management, and emotional control. Participants must confront how they define acceptable loss thresholds and whether their pre-set rules actually guide behavior during live drawdowns. The psychological dimension proves especially demanding: the temptation to average down into a falling knife competes with the wisdom of preserving capital. Successfully navigating this replay requires distinguishing between temporary dislocation and structural breakdown—a judgment call that remains among the most difficult in active portfolio management.