Not so good at asking questions in public

It is always an interesting time when you discover that you are not as good at a particular skill as you thought you were.

Last night, I realised that I am not very good at asking questions in public events. It was during those Q&A sessions when the audience is invited to ask the panelist or speakers a question. One bad question is a spike, twice is a trend.

Previously, I had never really asked questions during these events. Probably because I either never hung around for the Q&A, I was too self-involved or I thought I was ‘above’ the discussion. In any event, I thought I was good at something because the questions I had in my head seemed like great questions.

However, now I am running my own firm and asking a good question in the right forum is good marketing. My old boss used to say that a good question in the right group of people is the best marketing you can have. And a good question can even get you invited to speak at the next event.

Therefore, in my own ignorance, I decided that I would start asking questions during the Q&A. So I did.

The first panel I attended was a discussion on the 10 years post Great Financial Crisis. It was a good panel with former RBA members, a banker and the former Treasurer. The discussion was a more a recap of the events like ‘where were you?’ and ‘what were you thinking at the time?’

After the formal session, the Q&A portion of the evening started. I had, prior to the event, thought about the role of government in responding to extreme changes in asset prices (i.e. when bubbles burst) outside the monetary policies of the central banks.

I thought that the type of political party in charge did have a meaningful impact on the response.

Small ‘l’ liberal parties pushed the Keynesian line of increased spending to bolster wages for the middle and lower class (among other policies) so the Obama and Rudd governments seemed to pursue this.

Conversely, in Europe, a few conservative (or free market) economies seemed to balk at large spending, focusing on the perceived long term impacts, some even pushed for austerity (spending cuts) to ensure that the government was seen as in good financial health. These countries seemed to have suffered additional pain as a result of this austerity.

To add to this, I had taken this article on falling trust in government to mean that people did not trust government to act in their interests so would people trust government to act in their interests in the next financial crisis.

These points are not naturally linked but I thought I could build one or at least ask a pointed question about a link.

This melange of points swirled in my head and, as I raised my hand (and started shaking), the words seemed to get stuck and I repeated myself and the moderator asked me to clarify. I remember the phrase ‘technocratic solutions’ was said a few times. I seemed to black out.

The response from the panelists was to push back on me and it became less of a discussion and more of a rebuke. I was embarrassed and the table seemed to be embarrassed for me.

The only redeeming moment was that the fellow next to me asked about climate change as the catalyst for the next recession and the RBA panel member told him that he was at the wrong event which was harsh and ignorant. The recent speeches by APRA, TCFD and other key financial groups shows that the question was warranted.

So I had tried to, on the fly, construct a complex and ‘winning’ question for a group of experts. What happened is that I just said some gibberish and fell over backwards.

Now would be a good time to quote the famous line – ‘It is better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt’

However, that approach does not align with what I need. I need to build my profile. These events are the closest thing I can get to ‘direct marketing’.

I did go to an impact investing panel where I asked a good question but it was a shallow discussion and I know the area quite well. I think it was answered easily and without much fuss. Not a great marketing coup either.

But last night was less embarrassing, more farcical, Q&A session.

It was a speech by a well-known QC on the banking royal commission. The speech was less about the commission (due to his inability to speak about it) and more about the role of doubt in helping decision-making and how ‘responsible lending’ could be defined. He talked about conflict of interest studies from the US.

It was a good speech although more a TED talk than discussion.

I am not across the commission and I haven’t worked in finance in Australia. Most of things that he touched on, we had examined as part of the ESG investment analysis in my last job. Things like incentives and culture.

The Q&A session was stilted because it was clear that the QC would not answer direct questions about the commission. Most questions were puff questions about the personal impact or what people can do to prepare to be examined in a commission.

While it hadn’t dawned me during the speech, I felt more and more that the discussion didn’t include the historical nature of the conflicts between lendee and lenders (or any other fiduciary responsibility). I wanted to understand where the commission sat in the long-term trend of lending requirements, rather than just the response to the clear wrong doing uncovered during the commission.

So, again, I went into a question with a melange of ideas and the result was the same. I asked the question without a microphone, was told to repeat it and then asked about the 1000 years of lending. They laughed it off. It didn’t draw a rebuke but it was considered more of a joke than a question.

The question of historical relevance is important. As I am reading now in Galbraith’s The Great Crash 1929, lenient lending policies do lead to asset bubbles. If the royal commission results in a change to these policies, they change the trajectory of asset prices (with winners and losers). I wanted to ask if the impact of previous commissions or inquiries undertaken prior to a crash had been looked at.

I also wanted to understand a future where we relied more and more on data to identify risks and automate more elements of the decision making process. Does this future change the lendee vs lender discussion that we have had over the last 1000 years?

Anyhow, it was a weak question in front of relatively senior people.

So a poor response from me is to quarantine all questions to events where I deeply know the topic.

A better response is to admit that I am weak in this area and would benefit from ANY preparation. I should aim, at least, to make sure it is in the form of a question!

I am committing to:

• As a hard rule, no question should be asked if I haven’t written it down and reviewed it – not taking my notebook is the stated intention to not ask a question
• The questions should be less than 15 words – simple, plain English – to minimize the confusing layers and chances of misunderstanding
• No ‘gotcha’ questions – assume that you are not going to catch them or know more than them – they are on the panel because they know
• Seek information, not answers – clarify where you can. Ask myself ‘what didn’t I understand?’ rather than ‘what can I do to show how good I am ?’

I will continue to ask questions but I know now that I need to improve. I need to have a process and follow it. I will, over time, get better but this is a good lesson in hubris and arrogance.

The marketing only works if the question is good. My current approach is to focus on the marketing potential rather than the question – like planning the next shot before you have sunk the first shot in pool. Not a good idea for a novice!