When is controversial too controversial?

By Harriet Alexander, Founder & Managing Partner

October 2025

• Firms are expected to have a view, but at what point does originality become detrimental?

• Is it better to stand out from the crowd with a contrarian view and risk alienating clients, or to conform with the market consensus and blend into the background?

• Can a positive, value-creating outcome be achieved if you disagree with the collective?

• In my latest article I explore the balance between originality and contention, and how to walk the fine line between the two.

Are we forsaking originality for fear of controversy?

At a recent private credit conference, one speaker on the panel stood out – but not necessarily for the right reasons. Their contrarian view, that retail investors should not own private credit funds because of liquidity constraints of the funds vs. public market vehicles that retail investors are accustomed to, alongside the complexity of the assets, didn’t land well with the rest of the panel. Days later, however, they published a thought piece in an industry journal in which they simply stated liquidity in the asset class would undoubtedly come from retail investors, but did not include their previous, more cautionary comments.

With plenty of data available to back up their sceptical view, not least leverage utilisation by managers, loose covenants in the underlying assets, and the liquidity and redemption constraints for investors in private credit funds, why the abrupt change in tone?

Siding with the majority is hardly a new concept in the financial markets. After all, the industry exists to make a profit, and firms don’t want to alienate investors by voicing controversial opinions that may be at odds with their competitors or clientele. At one end of the spectrum, this could be taking the safer option of going with market consensus. At the other end, this could be jumping on the populist bandwagon, as has been the case with the thorny issue of sustainability and ESG.

The pendulum swings back

Once a rising star of the investment world, sustainable investment has endured a punishing few years, from investment redemptions to firms backtracking on their own commitment to the space. This trend has been most pertinent in the U.S. where, in addition to greenwashing concerns and high interest rates impacting company profitability, several Republican states recently launched legal action against multiple large asset managers, citing ‘environmental activism’ impacting energy prices. Subsequently, several asset managers withdrew support from the Net Zero Asset Manager initiative. A number of large U.S. banks also retreated from the Equator Principles, another sustainability alliance.

However, the tide seems to be turning yet again. In April, New York’s Comptroller denounced certain asset managers for reneging on their actions towards reducing climate change. Shareholders have also criticised companies, such as those in the oil sector, who reduced their sustainability targets. Moreover, a major UK pension fund withdrew £28bn from a large asset manager, after it backtracked on its ESG policy. More recently, a European pension fund withdrew €14bn from a large U.S. manager who had decreased their commitments to sustainability.    

Who wants to go first?

At key points throughout financial cycles, crises have occurred, but who identified them early, and did they pay a price? Were they ostracised from the financial markets and did the risk of going against consensus pay off? In the case of Global Financial Crisis of 2008 and onwards, fund manager Bridgewater Associates was widely seen as being one to the first to sound the alarm, flagging the risks of excessive financial leverage in spring 2007. They largely managed to avoid major losses and have since rapidly grown assets to become one of the largest and most respected fund mangers.

There is an obvious caveat in the instance of Bridgewater, which was already a sizeable and established entity before it raised its concern. Should the question be reframed, and instead ask: When it comes to bucking the trend, does size matter? Since the summer, other institutions have highlighted the risks in private credit.  These have been large institutions like J.P. Morgan where Jamie Dimon’s recent and now controversial “cockroaches” comment has drawn scrutiny from the industry.

The type of organisation is also important. Entities having the luxury of being more impartial as they don’t have clients to appease have, unsurprisingly, been far quicker to speak out. For example, in April this year, the Federal Reserve published warnings about private credit in their latest Financial Stability Report, with the asset class appearing in ‘most cited potential shocks over the next 12 to 18 months¹.’ In June, ratings agency Moody’s flagged the risks of retail investors moving into private credit². Other firms in the legal and independent research spaces – again, who don’t have direct investors – also voiced concerns earlier this year.

How to walk the tightrope

Is this precarious balancing act of both committing to and communicating your beliefs while not alienating investors workable, if you’re not one of the larger market participants? If managed thoughtfully then yes, it can. Here’s how:

• Set out core values and beliefs upfront: Test out your values and philosophy with robust internal discussions; once determined, set them out clearly in writing. This will help to provide a clear framework for forming future opinions and decision-making as it relates to products, etc.

• Communicate market views and opinions throughout the organisation: This makes sure everyone is on the same page and will send the same, consistent message to external stakeholders. Conflicting messages confuse investors and erode credibility.

• Leave the door open if necessary: It’s always helpful to have a view on market trends and new products. However, it doesn’t need to be strong or provocative. If you think you may want to explore other markets, products or investor bases in the future, it’s perfectly acceptable to be neutral, or to see both benefits and drawbacks of the subject in question.

Investors will respect firms who stay true to their principles more than those who flip-flop depending on current trends. ‘Style drift’ was a pet hate of investors when I was fundraising; people need to be able to trust that what they’re investing in will remain as such, and a firm won’t be swayed by populist trends.

Sources: (1) https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/financial-stability-report-20250425.pdf (2) https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/credit-risk/private-credit/private-market-retail-to-fuel-opportunity.html

Presenting to an audience? Don’t make these common mistakes

By Harriet Alexander, Founder & Managing Partner

September 2025

Top mistakes people make when presenting

• Saying “um” or using filler words too often. Once someone notices you’re doing this, it will likely be all they hear. ‘Kind of’, ‘sort of’ and ‘like’ also qualify. Instead, simply pause for a moment while you plan what you’re going to say next. 

• Going too fast. You need to speak slowly enough for the audience to keep up, and to pause at key points to let your words register. Speaking at the correct speed for this to happen will often feel as though you are going a little too slowly. Breathing properly and pausing can also help with this.

• “That’s a great question!” you say to a keen audience member, before launching into your answer. Well, it’s not a great reply and here’s why: how do you think it makes all the other audience members feel who asked questions and didn’t get the same validation? 

  
  

• Reading a script word for word. This may be acceptable when filming a video but that’s about it. At best, you’ll look unprepared; at worst, you’ll seem unknowledgeable. This habit is almost always driven by a lack of confidence or fear of freezing. Instead use bullet points, talk them through out loud beforehand and don’t be afraid of having to pause to think about what you’re saying next. Spontaneity brings a presentation to life and the audience will connect better if you’re more natural. Remember to look up and engage the audience with eye contact, too.

  
  

• Being vague when you really don’t know the answer to a question. This makes you look like you’re obfuscating, when all the audience wants is a clear, straight answer. Instead, say “I’ll need to check that and come back to you.” The audience will appreciate your honesty.

  
  

• Moving about too much, or poor posture. If standing, put your feet flat on the floor, with your weight split evenly and try not to shift from one foot to the other. Relax your shoulders or else you’ll look hunched and nervous. Don’t fold your arms as you will look defensive. Some hand movement is natural but too much will distract the audience. 

How to improve your delivery

• Film yourself presenting and watch it back. It’s excruciating but gives you an insight you wouldn’t otherwise have.

  
  

• Ask your colleagues for honest feedback after a presentation and take it on board.

  
  

• Undergo presentation training and retraining, no matter how senior you are or how long you’ve been presenting.

  
  

• Confidence, preparation and speed regulation are key to clear and successful delivery.

Why messaging matters

By Harriet Alexander, Founder & Managing Partner

September 2025

My journey

 In my early years working in the markets, I had little interest in marketing material. It was ‘just a presentation’, or an awards entry that needed ‘getting out of the way’. It wasn’t until a couple of years later that I began to appreciate how wrong I was. The proverbial penny dropped when I observed a senior Partner at a sizeable hedge fund spend hours agonising over the details of a presentation, right down to the punctuation. It was at this point that I realised if this was something worthy of the Partner’s time, someone who was clearly very busy with a multitude of responsibilities, it was surely worth my time, too. As my career progressed, my appreciation for the significance of messaging grew. In a subsequent role the entire distribution team was responsible for producing a marketing presentation from scratch – and it had to be perfect. Again, seeing very senior members of the distribution team take such a keen interest in ensuring that every word and graphic was accurate and polished demonstrated the importance of clear, relevant and concise messaging.

In my various fundraising roles, I knew that investors I was contacting were receiving hundreds of similar emails and calls from competitors. They had a vast choice of investment managers and were scant on time. It became evident that first impressions are of paramount importance, and every interaction and its content are critical – and can make or break a relationship.

As I progressed into more diverse roles with increasingly wide-ranging responsibilities, all communications across various media types had to be perfect. Whether it was editing a press release, scrutinising a video frame by frame, crafting a new presentation for or preparing for an investor meeting, I would ask myself: how will this be received? Is it clear, polished and accurate, or will it leave my audience with more questions than answers?

What is marketing and communications?

It’s not just the written presentation, but how you present it. It’s every factsheet, newsletter, press release and social media update. It’s more than presenting a keynote speech at a conference - brief, informal conversations afterwards can be even more impactful. White papers and research papers are also valuable and often overlooked ways to communicate. The first impression of a company website can make the difference between reading further and engaging or clicking away to a competitor’s more accessible site. Marketing and communications, in short, encompasses the messaging of all information and provides the basis for relationships and trust.

What are the key tenets of effective messaging?

Authenticity over AI: When AI-generated content makes its way into content, not only does it often ‘miss the mark’ (to use tired, clichéd AI parlance), but it also erodes trust. If a disembodied AI program has written your material, how does anyone know that it’s a true reflection of what you represent? Authentic, genuine content is a key foundation for building relationships. It tells the story in the company’s own words, communicating its true principles and philosophy, and demonstrates thoughtfulness and commitment to investors and other stakeholders. While AI undoubtedly has its uses, original and thoughtful content creation is not one of them.

Transparency: Without transparency, there can be no trust. After a client meeting in the early days of my career, I was pulled aside by a Partner who was also present. He lightly reprimanded me for sidestepping a question with a vague answer. “Just tell them you’ll come back to them. When you’re not clear, it looks like you’re hiding something.” His words stayed with me to this day and apply not only to spoken communication but to all messaging. Transparency promotes effective understanding and, in turn, builds confidence in an organisation and its capabilities.

Creating an identity: Building a strong brand not only helps stakeholders understand the business; it’s also a way to communicate critical differences. Furthermore, a unique identity not only provides differentiation but will also help people to remember you. Ask yourself: What’s our edge? Does it come across clearly or is it lost in a deluge of information? Why should or will this person remember me and is it for a good reason?

Accessibility: Overwhelmed with information from numerous sources, we have little time to process everything we see. Make your messaging clear, straightforward and jargon-free. Even the (very common) act of cramming too much text onto a slide can be hugely detrimental to how much information is retained. Content also needs to be relevant – get to the point as quickly as you can, before you lose your audience.

Professionalism: Poor grammar, typos and misaligned text are just a few examples of basic mistakes which are made all too often. If a company doesn’t put time and effort into their communications, or seem to care about their public persona, what else do they skimp on? Polished, accurate messaging demonstrates attention to detail and competence which permeates an organisation.

So, what’s my message?

It is crucial to give all marketing and communications materials the time and attention they deserve, ensuring the main message is clear and concise. Senior team members need to prioritise how their company is perceived and lead by example. The level of dedication and care around a company’s messaging is a demonstration of their level of professionalism. Finally, care and diligence in messaging, marketing and communications represents an understanding of and commitment to stakeholders, upon which lasting and trusting relationships are built.

Please reach out to info@alexitas.co.uk to discuss further.