Previsão Económica
Economistas e analistas que descodificam o que os dados realmente significam para mercados, políticas e negócios
Speakers Associates represents 71 speakers on Previsão Económica, including Marcelo Carvalho, Dan Walters, Calum Chace, Geoff Cutmore, Horst Köhler, Kwasi Kwarteng, Daniel Lacalle, Blanca Moreno-Dodson, Dominic O'Connell e Paul Johnson.
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 making long-horizon capital decisions are reading central bank communications more closely than they have in a generation. The question is no longer whether interest rates move, but whether the institutions setting them still operate within the mandates that markets have priced for thirty years. Capital allocators who misread that shift will misprice everything downstream from it.
Boards and investment committees are making capital decisions on geopolitical assumptions that no longer hold. The categories most institutions still use to assess country risk and global exposure were built for a system that is fracturing. Misreading the new map costs capital and market position.
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 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.
Energy transition is now a capital allocation problem, not a policy aspiration. Boards are committing to net zero pathways while financing, regulation and grid reality move at different speeds in every market they operate in. The question is no longer whether to decarbonise, but how to invest, price and hedge through a transition that looks completely different in Brazil, Europe and Southeast Asia.
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 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.