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.
Boardroom conversations about the economy, monetary policy and political risk now sit at the centre of strategy, not at the edge of it. Most senior audiences want a host who can put a Chancellor, a central banker and a chief executive in the same conversation and get straight, useful answers. The scarce skill is the journalist who can do that without flattening the substance.
Boards used to treat geopolitics as background noise. It is now a line item in capital allocation, supply chain design, and sanctions exposure. Most leadership teams have no one in the room who has actually negotiated with the White House, sat inside a National Security Council, or watched a transatlantic alliance fracture from the inside.
The institutions designed to contain a sovereign debt crisis – fiscal rules, central bank mandates, creditor agreements – rarely hold together under real pressure. Organisations exposed to European markets carry risk that standard scenario planning consistently underestimates. The decisions that actually matter in those rooms – and the compromises made to reach them – rarely match the public account.
Boards and leadership audiences want their conferences chaired by someone who can interrogate a Foreign Secretary, set up an economist, and keep a panel honest without losing the room. The skill is rarer than the speaker market suggests. Most journalists prepare; few can read a stage in real time and still ask the question the audience wants asked.
European policy is no longer a background variable. Migration, defence, energy, competitiveness, the rule of law, and the regulatory rulebook for AI and industry are all being decided in Brussels and Strasbourg, often on margins of a few votes. Boards and executive teams need to read where Europe is going, who is shaping it, and what that means for capital allocation across the next planning cycle.
Boards are being asked to make long-horizon capital decisions while the rules-based order they relied on for thirty years is coming apart. Sanctions regimes, technology controls, and great-power rivalry now sit inside ordinary commercial decisions about supply chains, AI investment, and market access. Leadership teams need a serious framework for reading geopolitical change, not headlines.
Boards and investment committees are being asked to make capital decisions inside a global economy that no longer behaves the way it did for thirty years. Trade is fragmenting, inflation paths are diverging across regions, emerging markets are pricing in political risk that used to be assumed away, and monetary policy is being run with one eye on geopolitics. The question executives keep returning to is the same: which of these shifts are noise, and which are structural enough to rewrite the operating assumptions behind a five-year plan.
Boards now have to make capital-allocation calls inside an economy where monetary policy, fiscal stress and political fracture move together. Most leadership teams can read the headlines but cannot trace how a central-bank decision in Frankfurt, a fiscal rule in Brussels and a war on Europe’s eastern border end up reshaping their cost of capital. The gap is not data. It is judgement from someone who has sat on the other side of those decisions.
Boards in banking, insurance and investment management are being asked to make capital decisions while macro signals, regulatory expectations and customer behaviour shift in different directions at once. The hard part is not gathering views. It is running a senior conversation that surfaces the disagreement honestly and lands on something a leadership team can act on. That requires a chair who knows the sector well enough to push back, and a journalist’s instinct for the question that reframes the room.
Boards now operate inside a thicker regulatory perimeter than at any point in the post-2008 cycle, with competition, digital and capital markets rules tightening at EU and national level at once. Most leadership teams read these moves as compliance cost, not as a market signal. The blind spot is structural. Pricing, M&A, data strategy and capital allocation are all being repriced by regulators while executives still treat regulation as a downstream constraint.
Boards and executive teams are making capital decisions inside a market environment where monetary policy, geopolitical risk, and corporate strategy now move together. The people who set those policies and run those companies will speak more candidly to a journalist they trust than to an analyst or a consultant. The gap most events struggle to close is access to those voices, on the record, with questions sharp enough to produce something usable.
Senior leaders are being asked to deliver in environments their playbooks were not written for: frontier markets, resource constraints, contested supply chains, and teams built across cultures. The credibility gap shows up in the room. Confidence built on past performance does not transfer cleanly to new geographies, new capital structures, or new generations of talent.