Globale Wirtschaft und Märkte
Experten, die die sich wandelnden Finanzmärkte, politische Entscheidungen und makroökonomische Kräfte analysieren und erklären
Speakers Associates represents 237 speakers on Globale Wirtschaft und Märkte, including Stephen Foerster, Lord Kim Darroch, Marcelo Carvalho, Elena Boheme, Jean Asselborn, Margarida Matos Rosa, Juliet Mann, Katie Prescott, Omar Christidis und Dan Walters.
European boards still treat Asia as a single export market when it is becoming the centre of gravity for capital, supply chains and technology. The cost of that misreading shows up in failed joint ventures, mispriced political risk and strategy decks that age in months. Most leadership teams lack a single voice who can hold the legal, commercial and geopolitical picture together.
Boards have signed up to net zero commitments and ESG language without testing the economics underneath. The result is a widening gap between climate ambition and capital allocation, and a quiet anxiety that the transition plan does not survive a rigorous question. Leaders need someone who can price the externality, stress test the strategy, and tell them which parts of the ESG narrative still hold once the numbers are in front of them.
Boards are being asked to price political risk into decisions they used to treat as commercial. Sanctions exposure, defence spending shifts, transatlantic friction and the unwinding of cheap globalisation now sit on the same agenda as capital allocation and operating strategy. Most leadership teams lack a reliable read on how policy decisions in Washington, Berlin and Brussels will land in their P and L.
Senior conferences live or die on the host. A panel of bank CEOs, central bankers and geopolitical analysts will not self-organise into a coherent hour; someone has to hold the room, follow the money in real time, and ask the question the audience came to hear. Most rosters of available moderators thin out fast when the brief involves live financial markets, sanctions, or a head of state in the green room.
Boards are asked to commit capital to AI before the returns are visible, and to do so while regulators, sovereign governments and a small group of US infrastructure companies redraw the rules around them. Most leadership teams do not have an internal source who covers all three at once. The gap shows up as exposure: investments made on vendor narratives, strategy decks built on last quarter’s headlines, and a quiet sense that the people in the room do not actually know who controls what.
Most companies misread their own growth. They confuse activity with traction, mistake fundraising for value creation, and back founders on charisma rather than unit economics. The discipline of evaluating a business the way a serious investor does, where capital has a cost and every dollar is forced to defend itself, rarely survives contact with internal politics.
Strategy built for national markets and capital-intensive competition is now a liability, not a framework. Urbanisation, the feminisation of skilled workforces, and the structural erosion of imitation as viable strategy have redrawn the competitive map. The organisations that grasp this shift first will set the terms of the next era of competition – not manage its consequences.
Markets now discipline governments faster than electorates do. A single fiscal statement, a single central bank misstep, a single energy shock can reprice a currency, raise borrowing costs, and force a strategy rewrite inside a week. Boards need to understand how political decisions become balance sheet events, and how to plan capital allocation when that link has shortened.
Boards now have to make capital and treasury decisions inside a fiscal regime that is being rewritten in real time. Germany’s debt brake, the EU’s reformed stability rules, and the political economy of public borrowing all directly affect cost of capital, currency risk, and the credibility of sovereign counterparties. Leadership teams need a serious read on where the rules are actually heading, not commentary on the headline number.
Boards and policy bodies face a sharper question than at any point since the 1990s: how do economies absorb shocks without fracturing politically? Stabilisation, currency credibility, and reform sequencing are no longer abstract policy concerns. They sit on the agenda of every leadership team exposed to inflation, capital flight, or political reversal in their core markets.
UK political risk no longer behaves like a quarterly variable. Regulation, fiscal direction, and public sentiment now shift on weekly news cycles, and most boards are reading those shifts through the same headlines as everyone else. The gap between Westminster signal and corporate response has become a real source of strategic error.
Boards are being asked to make capital decisions inside a fractured global system: tariffs, currency swings, sanctions exposure, and the slow tail of post-pandemic debt. Most economic commentary either oversimplifies the shock or buries it in jargon. Leaders need a clear read on what is cyclical, what is structural, and what to do about each.