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 postwar rules that protected trade, capital and cross-border operations are no longer holding. Boards are being asked to take positions on sanctions, export controls, China exposure and energy security without the diplomatic literacy the last generation could assume. The cost of getting the geopolitical read wrong now shows up in the P&L within a quarter.
Boards are being asked to price risks that sit outside the normal economic dashboard: sovereign debt stress in emerging markets, a tax system that is being rewritten in real time, health spending rules being redrawn by global institutions. Most in-house economics briefings still describe the world as if the rules have not changed. The gap between what is being debated inside the UN, WHO and OECD and what leadership teams are hearing is now wide enough to distort decisions on investment, supply, and workforce.
The international rules that underwrote three decades of cross-border strategy are no longer holding. Boards have to make capital, supply, and personnel decisions while sanctions regimes shift, member-state behaviour fractures the EU from within, and multilateral institutions weaken. Most external advisors describe the new map; very few have negotiated inside it.
Sovereign debt is at historic levels in the world’s largest economies, and central bank independence is under sustained political pressure. Boards and finance leaders must set long-range strategy without a reliable model of how monetary tightening, fiscal overreach, and geopolitical fragmentation compound each other. The institutional architecture that contained the last major financial crisis is now itself under stress.
Boards talking about China are usually talking past it. Most chairs in the room have read the same coverage, drawn the same conclusions, and miss the texture of how the country actually communicates about itself. The result is conferences that produce confident takes on a market most attendees have never reported from, hosted by moderators who have never sat inside the system they are describing.
Sustainability commitments now routinely outrun the geopolitical and macroeconomic conditions required to deliver them. Most boards that set climate or development targets lack a framework for the global economic forces that will determine whether those targets hold. The gap between what organisations have pledged and what the international system can realistically support is among the most consequential strategic risks leaders face.
Inflation, fragmented monetary regimes, and rising public debt are no longer background conditions. They shape pricing, capital cost, and the credibility of every long-horizon decision a board makes. Leaders need someone who has sat inside the institutions setting those conditions, not a commentator translating them from outside.
Boards have signed climate commitments and capital plans that depend on infrastructure that does not yet exist at scale. The gap between net zero ambition, regional grid reality, and shareholder return is widening, and most leadership teams have no economic framework that connects energy, digital, and mobility decisions into a single capital story. The question is no longer whether to decarbonise. It is what to build, in what order, with whom, and on whose roadmap.
Capital allocators are being asked to make decisions with a Federal Reserve that keeps changing direction, inflation that refuses to behave, and equity valuations that look unsustainable on every short-run metric. Most analysis on offer is reactive. Boards and investment committees want a longer view: what equities have actually done across cycles, what the data says about rate paths, and what a serious historical record implies for the next allocation decision.
European boards are being asked to make capital decisions inside a monetary union whose stress points, sovereign debt, banking fragility, energy dependency, semiconductor supply, are now political variables, not background conditions. Few people inside any boardroom have actually sat in the room when those decisions were taken at European level. Strategy that ignores how Brussels and Frankfurt will behave under pressure is strategy with a blind spot.
Boards keep asking the same question and getting comfortable answers: where is the next decade of growth actually coming from, and which assumptions about America, China, and commodities will not survive it. Most of the analysis on offer comes from people who have never set foot in the markets they are forecasting. Capital allocators want a view that has been tested against the ground, not just the spreadsheet.
Boards are being asked to price political risk into capital decisions they used to take on autopilot. Russia, China, the German economic engine, the durability of the transatlantic alliance, each is now a variable rather than a backdrop. Leaders need someone who can read the politics from inside the room, not summarise it from the headlines.