Reading through the feedback on an investment conference I chaired in London earlier this month, I found myself admonished for giving far more weight to my own questions than the audience’s during the Q&A sessions. This felt harsh since all the audience’s questions were addressed immediately and to each questioner’s apparent satisfaction.
My own questions – as tends to be the case at such events – were merely to fill in the gaps in proceedings when no audience hands were raised. Perhaps the issue for my critic was that – as tends to be the case at such events – there were quite a lot of gaps in proceedings when no audience hands were raised.
This may be a good point to clear up why event chairmen often ask their own questions when the whole audience has evidently been struck dumb by the magnificence of the preceding presentations. It is not because we like the sound of our own voices or even that we enjoy the frisson of a hostage situation but merely to maintain the schedule and allow the venue to set out fresh coffee cups.
Personally I would be delighted never again to have to ask another Q&A question but that is why I am paid – more or less – and why, at this recent event, I spent much of the first three presentations trying to think of a sensitive yet useful question on the ramifications of a potential escalation in the situation in Syria.
I know the theory here, of course – that investors seem more spooked by the prospect of war than the reality and that major conflicts are often followed by market rallies.
I also know it is almost a legal requirement at this sort of time for pundits to wheel out Baron Rothschild’s thoughts on blood and trumpets – and how tough that is to do without sounding ghoulish.
I suspect that last point was on the minds of the first three speakers, who – in presentations on the macro-economic outlook, equities and bonds – did not mention Syria once. Yet surely one has to address the issue, if only for the possibility it may cause the US Federal Reserve to rethink its timing on tapering quantitative easing.
The bond expert kindly conceded such a possibility but felt there was only a 2% chance the Fed would not begin tapering later this month. Meanwhile, the macro expert professed far greater concern about the consequences of an inevitable break-up of the eurozone at some future point while the equity manager played the ‘stockpicker’ card – the fund managerial equivalent of pleading the fifth.
One query that did emanate from the audience that day invited a manager to comment on how two of the questioner’s clients had declined to buy his fund because of a holding in Norwegian government bonds, on the grounds this was anti-Semitic.
Maybe he was the one who thought I initially ignored him although it was actually just one of the few times in my life when I have been lost for words.
Comments