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.
Leaders running operations across Europe are trying to plan against a political backdrop they did not train for: debt crises, constitutional referenda, Brexit, and the fracturing of the transatlantic relationship. The boardroom question is no longer how to read European policy but how to act when national governments, the Commission, and capital markets are pulling in different directions. Few people have sat in the chair where those forces meet and come out with the country in growth.
Europe is the largest single market in the world and one of the slowest to act on it. Boards with exposure to the EU face a widening gap between what Brussels signals, what national capitals deliver, and what competitors in Washington and Beijing execute. The question is no longer whether Europe will reform, but which reforms will actually happen, on what timeline, and how to position capital, supply chains, and regulatory strategy against them.
Most organisations set rules and incentives, then hope people behave as intended. They rarely do. When information is uneven, interests diverge, or a market structure rewards the wrong thing, the output is predictable: gamed auctions, misaligned pay, regulation that entrenches incumbents, decisions that no one in the room actually wants.
Boards and executive teams are making bets on trade corridors, capital flows and country risk with less reliable information than they had a decade ago. The old assumptions about globalization, multilateral institutions and cross-border rules no longer describe the operating environment. Leaders need a sober read on where the system is actually heading, from someone who has governed inside it.
Boards and investment committees are awash in forecasts, narratives and active-management pitches, yet the empirical record on whether any of it reliably beats the market is brutal. Leaders responsible for pensions, endowments and corporate capital need a disciplined way to separate what the evidence actually supports from what sounds persuasive in a meeting. The cost of getting that wrong compounds silently over decades.
Boards now have to make capital decisions inside a monetary regime they no longer understand. Rates moved further and faster than most strategy decks were built to absorb, and the eurozone’s political fault lines have not closed. Leaders need a working read on how central banks actually decide, not a commentary on what they did last quarter.
Most leadership teams have too many strategic priorities and no reliable basis for choosing between them. The result is organisations that are active but not competitive – sustaining wide portfolios of initiatives while their value proposition to customers and talent quietly weakens. Deciding what to stop doing is the harder strategic question, and most frameworks leave executives without a method.
Most companies say they want innovation. What they build instead is a pipeline that produces smaller variants of products they already sell, aimed at smaller slices of markets they already serve. The harder question, how to generate genuinely new categories and organise a company so ideas survive contact with operations, rarely gets a serious method behind it.
Leaders are making long-horizon bets inside democracies that look less stable than they did five years ago. Trade policy, regulation, and alliances are moving with elections, not cycles. The question is no longer whether politics affects strategy. It is how to read institutional strain before it breaks the assumptions a plan depends on.
Boards and senior teams operating in Britain are making capital and workforce decisions inside a political system most of them no longer trust to be stable. Westminster’s signals on tax, regulation, welfare and public spending shift faster than any planning cycle, and the commentary around them is noisier and more partisan than it has ever been. Leaders need someone who can read the politics honestly, separate the durable shifts from the noise, and do it in front of an audience that includes sceptics.
A live event lives or dies on the person holding the room. When a senior audience is in front of a panel of regional leaders, advertisers or transformation executives, the quality of the chair decides whether the conversation stays sharp or slides into safe generalities. Organisations need a host who can keep the agenda moving, push panellists for a real answer, and make the room feel the stakes of what is being discussed.
Boards and executive teams keep hitting the same wall: the strategy is sound on paper, and it still does not survive contact with the organisation. The friction is rarely about capability. It sits in the space between board conviction, executive nerve and the discipline to execute through a merger, a downturn or a public markets cycle without losing the thread.