Economic Trends & Global Markets
Economists and analysts who decode shifting financial landscapes, policy moves and macroeconomic forces
Boards convene leaders, clients and journalists in the same room and need a chair who can hold the conversation at the level the material demands. Most events default to an internal host who softens the questions, or a celebrity name who does not understand the brief. The cost is a flat conversation, an unmoved audience, and a missed chance to make the meeting matter.
Most companies misread their own growth. They confuse activity with traction, mistake fundraising for value creation, and back founders on charisma rather than unit economics. The discipline of evaluating a business the way a serious investor does, where capital has a cost and every dollar is forced to defend itself, rarely survives contact with internal politics.
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 Western boards make capital allocation and supply chain decisions about China using mental models that are a decade out of date. The country has moved from manufacturing replica to setting the innovation standard in whole categories, even as its political and economic logic remains opaque. The result is a steady stream of strategic misjudgements at the moment when getting China right matters most.
Most boards overreact to economic news that will not matter in six months, and underreact to the news that will. A Fed decision or a fresh tariff round lands inside the business as margin compression and forecasts that stop working. Leaders need someone who can tell them which indicators will actually move the next two quarters of performance.
Boards setting Asia strategy are working with thin signal. Reporting from the region is fragmenting along national, linguistic, and political lines, and the gap between official narratives and on-the-ground reality is widening. Leaders need an interlocutor who can sit between Western boardrooms and Asian political reality without flattening either.
Most organisations plan in three-to-five year cycles. The structural forces that actually reshape industries – demographic reordering, geopolitical power shifts, long-cycle economic transitions – operate on twenty-year timescales. The gap between those two horizons is where strategic miscalculation accumulates silently until it becomes a crisis.
Boards are making ten-year capital decisions in a trading bloc whose rules, alignments and political direction keep shifting under them. The commentary they read is either too abstract to act on or too partisan to trust. What they need is someone who has sat in the room, drafted the cables, and can tell them which risks are real, which are theatre, and what actually happens next.
Boards now have to take positions on China, tariffs and currency exposure without a settled framework for how the next decade plays out. The official numbers, the political signalling and the operating reality have stopped lining up. Capital allocation decisions are being made on intuition rather than on a clear read of what is actually moving in the world’s second largest economy.
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.
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 have signed up to net zero commitments and ESG language without testing the economics underneath. The result is a widening gap between climate ambition and capital allocation, and a quiet anxiety that the transition plan does not survive a rigorous question. Leaders need someone who can price the externality, stress test the strategy, and tell them which parts of the ESG narrative still hold once the numbers are in front of them.