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.
The cost of capital has reset and globalisation no longer guarantees cheap inputs or stable demand. Growth itself now depends on policy choices to a degree it did not a decade ago. Senior leaders are allocating capital across regions where trade rules and AI policy are being rewritten in real time.
Boards and investor audiences need someone who can hold a room together when the agenda spans monetary policy, market shocks and corporate strategy in the same hour. Most chairs either know the finance and cannot move an audience, or run a slick stage and lean on the speakers to carry the substance. The gap is a moderator who can read a balance sheet, interview a chancellor, and keep a thousand-person dinner audience engaged at the same level.
Most large organisations now carry a social or environmental mandate alongside a profit one, and the two are managed as separate functions that argue with each other. The result is a stack of pledges, ESG reports, and philanthropy budgets that the operating business does not depend on. The harder question is whether a company can design a real business unit, with its own P and L, whose product is a measurable social outcome.
Risk distributions move under stress. They shift most sharply in the moments that matter, when the models built on calmer markets break. Boards and investment committees still have to commit capital, with no clean way to see what is coming.
A boardroom conversation on global markets needs more from its chair than a smooth introduction. Senior decision-makers will not engage when the host cannot follow the substance, and the people who know the substance often cannot run a room. Most stages end up settling for one or the other.
The institutions that underwrite global strategy – the IMF, the World Bank, the post-war regulatory order – were built to reflect a specific distribution of power. That distribution no longer holds, and the institutions are changing more slowly than the politics around them. Boards and strategy teams that still treat these frameworks as stable anchors are making decisions on premises that have already shifted.
Boards with exposure to the Middle East are being asked to make capital and operating decisions on a region where the analytical inputs are unreliable. Sanctions regimes shift, alliances re-form, and the gap between media narrative and on-the-ground reality has widened. Most external advisers can describe the policy. Very few can read the room.
A high-profile corporate event lives or dies on the person holding it together at the front of the room. A leadership town hall, a regulated industry conference, a charity gala, an awards night, a medical congress with sensitive clinical content: each demands a host who can read a room, handle a programme overrun, interview a difficult panellist and keep an audience with them for hours. Most organisations underestimate how rare that craft is until they have hired badly.
For boards, climate has shifted from a sustainability concern to a capital allocation question. Most decision frameworks have not caught up. Leaders need an economic case for the transition that is robust enough to reset investment policy and survive challenge from sceptical shareholders.
UK regulation and tax conditions shift with each Parliament, and the country has had five prime ministers since 2016. Boards planning capital allocation or expansion in the UK are working inside a political environment that no longer settles between elections. The cost of misreading a Westminster signal, or reading it late, has gone up sharply.
Boards used to treat Russia as a market, an energy supplier, or a manageable counterparty. None of those framings hold. Decisions about exposure, sanctions, dual-use technology, and partner risk now hinge on reading the Kremlin’s political logic correctly, and most C-suites have no internal capability for that read.
Boards exposed to China are working with a different operating system than the one their advisors were trained on. State guarantees, shadow credit, and policy reflex shape capital flows in ways that do not appear cleanly in Western financial models. Leaders need a reading of the Chinese economy that names the specific risks rather than restating the headlines.