Echoes: Never take stability for granted

Mirova’s Soliane Varlet compares the impact of the dotcom crash, the GFC and the Paris Accord on her 20-year career as an equities analyst and portfolio manager, and how each event has shaped her perceptions of risk, investor behaviour and long-term fundamentals.

If you could pick one market moment from the last 25 years that you think has had a lasting legacy on where we are today, what would it be?

Soliane Varlet (SV): There are several moments that left an indelible mark, but the Global Financial Crisis [GFC] stands out. Its aftermath, and the idea of ‘too big to fail’, fundamentally changed how we think about risk, innovation, and regulation. Suddenly, there was a sense that central banks and governments were always standing ready to intervene – something that was only half true before. The new world became one where market participants expect a rescue and, in turn, sometimes take greater risks, knowing someone may save them if things go wrong.

And the legacy is ongoing: more regulation, more caution, but ironically also pockets of excessive risk because of the so-called ‘Fed put’ – the market’s belief that the US central bank will always be there to intervene with liquidity, or lowering interest rates, whenever there’s a significant market decline.

Do you believe central banks can always rescue markets, or is there a limit?

SV: That’s the unanswered question. For the last twenty years, central banks have consistently acted to prevent total collapse – we’ve rarely seen a full-scale crisis since the GFC as a result. But we don’t know how reliable that safety net remains. It shapes risk appetite – some take on more risk, assuming the Fed or ECB will intervene if things go wrong, which may not always be true. More than ever, understanding these dynamics is essential.

Where were you and what was your role during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), and how would you describe its impact on your career?

SV: I was a couple of years into my buy-side career and just becoming a portfolio manager for the first time when the crisis hit in 2008. But I’d already had an intense introduction to market turmoil: in the summer of 2000, I began as a sell-side media analyst just as the dot-com bubble burst. My first research report was on tech valuations as everything was crashing. My boss left six months later, and I found myself responsible for a sector in crisis. Both moments – the dotcom bust and the GFC – left me with a persistent caution for fundamentals, risk management, and valuation discipline.

How would you compare the two crises – the dotcom bust and the GFC – in terms of impact and how you experienced them as an analyst?

SV: The dotcom bubble was more about long discussions and slowly-building awareness. Was it a bubble, or wasn’t it? It was debated over years – bringing us fears of irrational exuberance, creative new metrics, and business models that promised everything. When the crash came, it was both expected and shocking.

The GFC, on the other hand, was utterly relentless. Every day brought new bad news, new shocks. There was no time to pause and comprehend; you were forced to react and cope with cascading risk. It wasn’t a single moment – it was the day-to-day grind of realising how quickly an entire system could freeze.

Both crises instilled a sense of humility and a focus on long-term fundamentals. You learn to challenge assumptions constantly and to never take stability for granted. Market psychology became more important in my thinking – sometimes the most important variable is simply investor behaviour, whether fear, or irrational optimism. My goal became keeping a cool head, stepping back, and letting the long view guide decisions, rather than getting swept up in trendy narratives.

Was there a defining moment during the GFC when the magnitude of the event really became clear?

SV: Honestly, there wasn’t a single ‘lightbulb’ moment. You’re just in it, day by day – each day more overwhelming than the last. Information comes fast, you process it, anticipate what’s next, and keep moving.

So, I’d say you feel the magnitude more in hindsight. Unlike the dot-com bubble, where awareness built slowly, the GFC was an avalanche. The banking sector’s daily decline was a vivid proxy for the wider collapse. The economy, jobs, and entire industries felt the direct impact, and you watched people around you – colleagues, friends – lose their jobs and struggle.

Sometimes, you just have to respond in real time. There’s no luxury for deep contemplation. You still analyse and process, but you’re living minute to minute. The big lesson: be ready to act, stay humble, and focus on what can be controlled. Don’t overestimate your capacity for prediction—be prepared for constant change.

It sounds like every major crisis leaves its mark. Does experience make you more cautious or more resilient?

SV: Both. For investors, all of these major events – whether it’s the tech bubble, the GFC, or Covid – are types of traumas in a way. They teach you the value of perspective. The younger generation of investors, particularly those who have only experienced quick rebounds like post-Covid, haven’t faced these ‘real’ traumas yet. That’s why veteran teams help balance bias and bring diverse perspectives – and it’s why group dialogue is crucial. I’m not necessarily worried about today’s macro risks, but close monitoring and ongoing analysis are vital.

How are you monitoring specific areas of concern, like market concentration, AI, debt, or macro policies?

SV: Market concentration is troublesome. When mega-cap tech stocks dominate, diversification becomes critical. AI is fascinating: there are early winners, like Nvidia and TSMC [Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company], but also many companies with little revenue or profitability that are riding on the hype. My focus is exposed names with robust fundamentals and actual assets, not just theoretical potential. Valuation and real business matter more now than ever, especially amid sub-segments of tech that could be overextended.

What lasting lessons should investors draw from these crises to shape their long-term thinking?

SV: Above all, maintain a long-term view and diversify. That’s what many years in sustainable investing have taught me. You need to focus on fundamentals and risk, but also recognise how much emotions – your own and the market’s – drive outcomes. Humility is essential; circumstances change quickly. Challenge your thinking, stay nimble, and avoid becoming too committed to any single narrative. These principles shape how I manage portfolios today, especially now with questions surrounding AI, bubbles, and shifting market psychology.

You mentioned sustainable investing there. How did the Paris Accord in 2015 and the resulting buzz around ESG shift the investing landscape for you?

SV: The Paris Accord felt like a joyful moment – a clear commitment to extra-financial criteria. It wasn’t traumatic, it was hopeful, formalising what many in sustainable investing had long advocated. For us, it was a validation – proof that the industry was ready to embrace ESG.

Over time, backlash and changing economic conditions have challenged that momentum. For example, in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the resurgence of inflation, fuelled in part by soaring energy costs, triggered a rapid and lasting rise in interest rates that penalised investment in the energy transition.

But the main lesson is that ESG now has broad financial materiality. It’s not just ethical, it’s a fundamental component of risk and opportunity. Today, asset managers widely recognise and integrate ESG, which helps in better risk assessment and transparency.

In terms of impact, what is the greatest achievement since the Paris Accord?

SV: The continued existence of global dialogue on sustainability is key. The COPs [Conference of the Parties] still happen – at the most recent one, COP30, in Brazil, Lula Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s President, said in his opening address that the world needed a road map to overcome its dependence on fossil fuels.

In recent years, the focus has extended to biodiversity, and debate is ongoing despite backlash. ESG has shifted from niche to mainstream. The lesson: when you believe in something deeply, stick with it and keep adapting. Financial materiality, not just the G for governance, has become universally accepted as critical to performance.

What advice would you give someone starting an investment career today?

SV: Be curious, open-minded, and ready to challenge yourself. Curiosity leads to continual learning and is the foundation for all other advice. Patience is also essential – experience cannot be rushed. And be willing to view mistakes as lessons, not just setbacks.

Something I’m focused on increasingly is education and the impact of AI on children. The world of work is shifting rapidly; generative AI changes knowledge jobs and what it means to be junior in finance. So I attend conferences on these topics and read widely to understand how learning, attention, and childhood are impacted. It’s all part of keeping perspective, refreshing for better thinking when returning to investment work.

In short: listen actively, maintain humility, and never stop asking questions. Markets change, but those who remain adaptive, curious, and resilient will succeed over time.

Interviewed in November 2025