investment

The Sparks worked on building their 2026 roster long before the WNBA’s compressed free agency period tipped off.

Teams have had a little more than a week to prepare their training camp rosters between free agency, the league’s primary draft and an expansion draft. The Sparks have one of the more notable roster transformations in the league, adding Nneka Ogwumike, Erica Wheeler and Ariel Atkins.

On Sunday at the start of training camp in San Diego, Wheeler said Sparks returning guard Kelsey Plum sold her on the vision of the organization, and Ogwumike’s signing cemented it.

“KP played a big role in having me here,” she said, describing a lunch last season when Plum told Wheeler she wanted her to sign with the Sparks. “I think Nneka just was like the tip of the iceberg, like it was a no brainer. Once Nneka decides she wants to come here, because, as you know, president [of the WNBPA], life is always easier around her.

“We want to win the championship.”

Ogwumike’s return to Los Angeles was just one indicator that the Sparks are, as Wheeler put it, “going for gold.”

This year’s Sparks roster looks a lot more intentional than a couple of years ago. General manager Raegan Pebley said Atkins’ addition helps establish a deeper offense, while Rae Burrell playing at the three gives them more versatility.

There are still question marks. They don’t have a ton of ball-handling depth or much true-center play after Cameron Brink.

But Ogwumike has seen the changes internally and from afar, and she thinks the Sparks are ready to compete now.

“I didn’t actually want to leave, but I felt like I needed to, considering the growth that we wanted to see further in the organization, and I really wanted to come back,” she said. “… The timeline of a lot of things [in the offseason] accelerated, me narrowing down certain organizations, but L.A. was in the mix not because, not just because of the time that I’ve had here, but because of the amazing progress that I’ve seen in just the two years in my absence.”

Ogwumike said part of that was the investment in a practice facility, set to debut in 2027, and that the front office, led by Pebley, had a plan to build a winning team.

But the most important thing in bringing in the veteran trio was that the Sparks had a plan on the court, too.

“It’s really exciting when you can be in a place where everybody has the main thing being the main thing,” Atkins said. “And that’s not to say it wasn’t like that in the past, but it’s different when you have older players and vets around you that have done it before, because the way that they walk in, the way that they talk, there’s no uncertainty there, right? It’s like, this is how we need to get through, this is what we need to do, get it done so it really just be on us.”

Wheeler has only played in the WNBA postseason a handful of times between Indiana and Seattle and at 36 years old, she joined the Sparks led by coach Lynne Roberts with the intention of playing for a winner.

“I tell people all the time, I’m a businesswoman,” she said. “I have money. … So money don’t move me, [there] was a lot more money out there for me to go after. But I felt like Lynne is building a championship rock, and I want to be a part of that.”

Atkins was traded from Chicago for Rickea Jackson, a controversial move that shipped one of the best young players in the game away from the Sparks. On draft night, Pebley said the move helped them win games now and she reiterated that on Sunday.

“We were really aware of is that we were missing another counter punch with KP, she needed some support in terms of somebody that can take some pressure off of her, to have to score it, or to have to create for someone else to score it, that was a big reason of why Ariel, we feel, is a great fit,” she said. “And then Erica Wheeler is just a winner, and she’s going to bring some toughness and leadership there. So I think with those three at the one-two spot, we’re super excited about that.”

Atkins adds a defensive layer alongside Ogwumike for a team that was dead last in the WNBA in defensive points per game last season, and that’s one of those intentional, win-now kind of moves that has everyone in the organization excited.

The Sparks finished just two games out of a playoff spot last season. This year, expectations are far more than just finishing as a playoff team, and that messaging brought in one of the most cohesive rosters in the WNBA.

“I always say that the killer combination is investment and engagement, and so I’m seeing both at very high levels, and it permeates every aspect of the organization,” Ogwumike said. “Whether it’s basketball ops, front office, player experience, practice facility, it’s just something that I’ve always believed was our standard, and not only have we matched what our expectations were, but we’re now exceeding it in a timeline that I think is much faster than I ever expected.”

The recently concluded 14th Ministerial Conference of the WTO produced mixed results. While the multilateral system remains stuck on Appellate Body appointments, one of the most extensive pre-conference discussions focused on the Chinese-led Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA). With 129 member states backing the IFDA, including countries like Bangladesh and several least developed countries (LDCs) from Africa, this has put India’s position as a key representative of the third world into question.

However, a thorough examination of India’s position reveals deeper concerns about the WTO within the ever-changing framework of global economic governance. In this article, I argue that India’s opposition to the IFDA is based not merely on apprehensions about China’s strategic influence, but also on other considerations founded on the grounds of jurisdiction, sovereign right to regulate and the procedure.

The Jurisdictional Argument & Potential Fragmentation of the International Trade Regime:

India’s primary objection to the IFDA emerges from a very pivotal question in the field of international law, challenging the jurisdiction and mandate of the WTO. In a rules-based transnational system, international organizations operate on a mandate-based framework. This mandate is primarily derived from the substantive provisions of their founding agreements and the consent of member states. Historically, the WTO’s mandate has centred on trade, specifically the regulation of trade in goods and services, as well as certain trade-related aspects of intellectual property and investment. While instruments such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) incidentally touch upon investment, they do so only insofar as it is in relation with trade.

Given that the WTO’s mandate and primary focus are on trade, India maintains that the regulation of investment as an autonomous domain fall outside its negotiated competence. This position is grounded in the collapse of the “Singapore Issues,” which included investments as one of its four development agenda and were explicitly dropped from the Doha Developmental Agenda in 2004. The reintroduction of investment facilitation through the IFDA is thus viewed as lacking a legitimate mandate, raising serious concerns about the WTO’s overreach.

Another factor closely linked to the lack of mandate is the plurilateral character of the proposed agreement. Unlike multilateral agreements, which bind all WTO members on the basis of consensus, plurilateral agreements apply only to a subset of willing participants. While such arrangements are not unprecedented within the WTO framework, India views the IFDA as a symbolic representation of a broader trend towards fragmentation. The primary concern of New Delhi is the risk that plurilateralism brings to the system. India’s apprehension stems from creation of a two-tier system within the WTO, wherein economically powerful states effectively set the rules, leaving others in a position of reactive compliance. This seriously undermines the foundational principle of sovereign equality among the WTO members and erodes the consensus-based decision-making model that has historically been a salient feature of the WTO.

Right to Regulate

A further dimension of India’s opposition to the IDFA pertains to the preservation of regulatory autonomy. The IFDA, although framed as a facilitative instrument, introduces disciplines that may constrain domestic policymaking. The current bilateral system on which international investment law is based relies heavily on bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and dedicated chapters on investment in comprehensive economic partnership agreements (CEPA). This empowers developing countries such as India to specifically negotiate foreign investment policy in accordance with domestic requirements and national priorities.

However, under the IFDA’s plurilateral approach, India’s apprehension is grounded in obligations relating to non-discrimination, administrative review, and procedural standardisation, which over time may limit the flexibility required to implement industrial policy, promote local value addition, or regulate sensitive sectors in the public interest.

Further, India is also careful of the potential consequences that may arise from incorporating investment-related disciplines within the WTO framework. Although the IFDA does not formally include investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, its provisions could nonetheless be invoked indirectly in arbitral proceedings under bilateral investment treaties (BITs).

Given India’s prior experience with investment treaty arbitration and the subsequent revisiting of its Model BIT in 2016 to ensure regulatory balance, this concern carries considerable weight. While at face value these provisions might seem benign and aimed at facilitation of flow of investments, their pro-investor interpretations might create problems by exposing India to international liability.

Another vital dimension of India’s critique pertains to the procedural legitimacy of the IFDA negotiations. It is quite commonly observed that the legitimacy of outcomes is intricately linked to the legitimacy of the processes that produce them. These negotiations were initiated through a Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) which remains controversial within the WTO system. India’s argument relies on the absence of an explicit mandate which contradicts the WTO’s decision-making framework, which is based on consensus.

Beyond these factors, India’s position can also be understood as a negotiation strategy. By resisting the incorporation of new issues such as investment facilitation into the WTO package, India seeks to preserve negotiating leverage in ongoing and future discussions. Accepting the IFDA could open a pandora’s box for the introduction of other areas, including digital trade and e-commerce, thereby shifting the balance of negotiations away from priorities of developing countries, such as agricultural subsidies.

It is important to note that India does not oppose investment facilitation in principle; rather, its criticism is related to the form, venue, and legal consequences of introducing non-trade disciplines at the WTO. India has, in fact, undertaken substantial domestic reforms aimed at improving the ease of doing business and attracting foreign investment. Its objection is more precisely directed at the form, forum, and legal implications of embedding such non-trade disciplines within the framework of WTO.

In summary, the refusal of India to sign the IFDA is a reflection of careful consideration of complex legal factors combined with prudence regarding institutional development and developmental policy. It underscores a broader tension within the contemporary multilateral trading system aiming to balance the ever-expansive rule-making to protect & promote investments, with preservation of regulatory policy space for host states.

Billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior Tom Steyer, a leading Democratic candidate for California governor, is facing mounting questions about how he earned his wealth — notably investments in private prisons that are now being used to house undocumented immigrants facing deportation.

Some of the most vicious political attacks come from his Democratic rivals and Sacramento special interest groups as the June 2 primary election fast approaches, but Steyer has been dogged for years about his past, controversial business ventures and how they help fund his unbridled campaign spending.

Steyer, 68, faced that ire during a town hall event in San Diego last week.

“Tom, you’re not going to come to San Diego and ignore this detention center,” Holly Taylor, a 37-year-old Democrat screamed at Steyer, holding signs with QR codes to help detainees at an Otay Mesa private prison that Steyer’s hedge fund backed. “It’s a concentration camp. They’re drinking water out of a toilet.”

Taylor, a crime scene cleaner from Pacific Beach, is among scores of people who gather weekly at the facility to raise money for detained immigrants to provide them some comfort amid the Trump administration’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.

In 1986, Steyer, co-founded Farallon Capital, which had shares valued at $89.1 million in the Corrections Corp. of America in 2005, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission. That company, now known as CoreCivic, operates private prisons around the nation that are housing people picked up by federal immigration agents, including the one in Otay Mesa.

It is not the first time Steyer has faced criticism about the connection with private detention facilities. At the California Democratic Party convention in February, protesters dressed in orange prison jumpsuits sought to draw attention to the controversy.

His Democratic rivals have also seized upon the issue to question the billionaire’s progressive credentials.

“Before he was a progressive, he made millions off of companies that operate ICE detention centers, that operate private prisons that incarcerated young children,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said during a recent interview with a political influencer known as Mrs. Frazzled.

“His entire campaign is built on the backs of kids in cages,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, (D-Dublin) wrote Tuesday in a post on X.

People protest outside of a lunch held by California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer at the 2026 California Democratic Party State Convention in San Francisco on Feb. 21.

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

Several years earlier, Yale University’s graduate teachers union called upon the school — Steyer’s alma mater — to divest from Farallon because of concerns about how the private prison company treated detainees, notably minorities.

Steyer has repeatedly expressed remorse about his former firm’s ties with the detention company. In 2012, he sold his stake in Farallon, which was named in reference to islands off the coast of San Francisco and was once one of the largest hedge funds in the world.

“I deeply regret that Farallon made that investment, and I personally ordered the investment in CCA to be sold because it did not accord with my values then or now,” Steyer told The Times in 2019 after he launched a short-lived presidential campaign.

Asked to comment about the latest iteration of the controversy, Steyer’s campaign pointed to comments he made in March at a town hall in San Francisco about how among the hundreds of thousands of companies his hedge fund invested in, the private prison company changed the course of his life.

“It was a mistake, and I sold it over 20 years ago, thinking, not that it won’t be profitable, it’s just a mistake. I don’t want to be in that business. But let me say this, it wasn’t just a mistake,” Steyer said. “It was also a big wake-up call that I was in the wrong place, that I was in a business that was taking me to places I absolutely didn’t want to go. And there’s a reason I walked away from that business and walked away from a ton of money, because I felt like that is not the life I want.”

He added that he and his wife, Kat Taylor, have spent the past two decades pushing for rehabilitative justice — treatment instead of mass incarceration except for violent felons.

“Am I a perfect person? No, have I made mistakes? Yes,” Steyer said. “But for those of you who like to read the Bible, there is a moment on the road to Damascus when someone makes a change, and I have made a big change, and I did it a long time ago, and I’ve been pushing very, very hard the other way.”

Farallon also invested in fossil fuel projects, including an Australian coal mine that denuded thousands of acres of koala habitat and generated an enormous amount of carbon emissions.

Steyer, who has a net worth of $2.4 billion according to Forbes, has painted himself as a reformed billionaire who walked away from Farallon because of angst about how he earned his fortune. He has spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting Democratic causes, notably efforts to fight climate change.

“The truth is that is not where I think there is value, and that is not what I’m seeking in my life,” he said at a Sacramento town hall in March when retired state employee Gina Coates asked how, as a woman of color, she could believe his promises given his privilege as a wealthy white man.

“In terms of trusting me, let me say this, I left my business 14 years ago, and anybody who cared about money would not have done it,” Steyer said.

Steyer later said at the town hall that he left Farallon because he realized that he didn’t want to remain on that path.

“I want to have a meaningful life,” he said. “I want to stand with the people of this state and have actual prosperity. Twelve trillionaires and 40 million people who can’t make rent is not success.”

But Steyer and his wife continue to receive significant income from the hedge fund, including millions of dollars in investments, holdings and various complicated transactions in 2024, according to a statement of economic interest and tax returns he was required to file with the California Secretary of State’s office because of his gubernatorial run.

A Steyer campaign spokesman said Steyer created guardrails to ensure that he does not profit off companies he morally disagrees with.

“Tom has put in place an investment policy to ensure that he does not directly invest in fossil fuels, payday lending, or private prisons,” spokesman Anthony York said. “To the extent he inadvertently incurs exposure to those industries through third-party managers or liquid legacy investments, Tom will donate all profits to charity.”

After leaving Farallon, Steyer became one of the nation’s top Democratic donors. And he has used his wealth to fund his political ambitions. Steyer contributed nearly $342 million of his own money to his short-lived 2020 presidential campaign, according to the Federal Election Commission.

In the 2026 governor’s race, Steyer has donated nearly $112 million to his campaign as of Thursday, according to the California secretary of state’s office. He has been an ubiquitous presence on the airwaves, including local news programs and campaign ads that aired during the “Puppy Bowl” on the Animal Planet channel on Super Bowl Sunday. In the past month, Steyer has aired more than 5,000 ads, according to iSpot, which tracks television commercials.

California, home to 23.1 million registered voters, is home to some of the nation’s most expensive media markets. And candidates, particularly those who are not well known, need to spend heavily on television advertising if they hope to have a successful campaign.

But money is no guarantee of success. Billionaire Meg Whitman, the former eBay chief and formerly a longtime Republican donor, spent $144 million of her money on her 2010 gubernatorial bid. That set a record for a candidate’s contribution in a state race at the time, but Whitman lost to Jerry Brown by nearly 13 percentage points.

In 1998, Democratic multimillionaire Al Checchi who had been the co-chair of Northwest Airlines spent $40 million of his wealth on an unsuccessful run for governor, also a record at the time.

Steyer is one of the top three Democrats in the sprawling field to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. And his liberal positions are drawing the ire of powerful forces in Sacramento. On Tuesday , the state’s Realtors donated $5 million to an independent expenditure committee opposing Steyer’s bid.

Taylor, who confronted Steyer at the San Diego town hall, said she had not planned to be so vocal. But as the event unfolded, she decided she had to speak, not only to Steyer but to the attendees. She and her compatriots gather every Sunday outside the Otay Mesa facility to raise money to help detainees buy food in the prison commissary and call their families.

“My main issue is that he has gotten financial gain off of these people suffering,” she said.

US Department of Defense demands retraction of report alleging broker sought multimillion-dollar investment for Hegseth.

The United States Department of Defense has demanded the retraction of a newspaper report alleging that a broker for defence chief Pete Hegseth attempted to make a large investment in weapons companies in the run-up to the war on Iran.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell demanded the “immediate” retraction on Monday after The Financial Times reported that a wealth manager for the defence secretary contacted BlackRock about making a multimillion-dollar investment in a defence-related fund in the weeks leading up to the war.

Hegseth’s broker at Morgan Stanley ultimately did not go ahead with the investment in the exchange-traded fund, whose holdings include Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, because it was not yet available for purchase at the time, The Financial Times reported, citing three unnamed sources.

“This allegation is entirely false and fabricated. Neither Secretary Hegseth nor any of his representatives approached BlackRock about any such investment,” Parnell said in a post on social media.

“This is yet another baseless, dishonest smear designed to mislead the public.”

Hegseth and his department “remain unwavering in their commitment to the highest standards of ethics and strict adherence to all applicable laws and regulations,” Parnell said.

Al Jazeera could not independently confirm the Financial Times report.

The Defense Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent outside of usual business hours.

The Financial Times and Morgan Stanley also did not immediately respond to inquiries.

BlackRock declined to comment.

The report comes amid scrutiny of well-timed trades in financial and prediction markets that have fuelled speculation that figures with insider knowledge may be profiting off of US President Donald Trump’s war plans.

While The Financial Times reported that the attempted investment by Hesgeth’s broker did not go ahead, the defence chief would not have made money on such a purchase in the month since the war began.

While the iShares Defense Industrials Active ETF has risen more than 25 percent over the past year, it has fallen nearly 13 percent since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28.

DRAGONS Den star Steven Bartlett has banked a massive £10million from the sale of Huel.

Steven, 33, was one of the first investors in the meal replacement brand and first took a stake in 2017.

Now food giant Danone – which owns Activia and Actimel – has agreed to purchase Huel for £860m.

As a result, Steven – who hosts UK’s No1 podcast Diary Of A CEO, is laughing all the way to the bank.

A source said: “Steven really does have the Midas touch when it comes to investments.

“He was an early investor – and the biggest, earliest non-corporate investor in Huel.

RISKY PRICE

Katie Price let off hook by Trading Standards after ‘cancer cure’ claims

FIGHT ON

Towie’s Jordan reveals he has ‘to learn to walk again’ amid meningitis battle

“It’s safe to say he has made more than £10 million with Huel over the years – which is a, frankly, enormous sum.

“But it just goes to show what a canny investor he is.

“Of course, not all investments on new companies work out – but Steven’s track record is fantastic.

“He believes in new businesses and entrepreneurs and, on this occasion, his acumen has delivered big.”

Steven isn’t the only celebrity that’s seen more than just gym gains from the brand.

In 2022, Idris Elba and his wife Sabrina backed the brand with a £20m fundraiser.

Broadcaster Jonathan Ross and TALA’s Grace Beverley also hopped on the trend and invested.

Since then, Huel expanded its range to nutrition bars, health drinks and ready meals.

Huel is just the latest investment of Steven’s to deliver.

Perfect Ted – the matcha company he invested in – has become the most successful Dragons Den pitch ever; after it was valued at more than £140 million late last year.

Today, matcha has taken over an entire floor of his London office building.

Bartlett is also the host of Diary Of A CEO, one of the biggest Podcasts in the world – and the UK and Europe’s No1.

Earlier this year, Steven announced he was engaged to long-term partner Melanie Lopes, a French-Portuguese wellness influencer.

March 17 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s government has launched a major initiative to foster domestic artificial intelligence semiconductor companies, committing tens of billions of dollars as part of a broader national investment plan.

The Ministry of Science and ICT and the Financial Services Commission held a public-private meeting in Seoul on Tuesday to introduce the so-called “K-NVIDIA Project,” a strategy aimed at building globally competitive AI chipmakers.

Under the plan, the government will allocate 30 trillion won (about $22.5 billion) to artificial intelligence and about 21 trillion won (about $15.8 billion) to semiconductors from a 150 trillion won ($112.5 billion) National Growth Fund to be created over five years.

Officials said the initiative is designed to nurture homegrown AI chip firms capable of competing with global industry leaders, strengthening South Korea’s position in next-generation technologies.

Participants at the meeting included Deputy Prime Minister and Science and ICT Minister Bae Kyung-hoon, Financial Services Commission Chairman Lee Eun-won and Korea Development Bank Chairman Park Sang-jin, along with executives from local AI semiconductor firms.

Industry representatives from companies such as FuriosaAI, DeepX, Mobilint, HyperExcel and Rebellion also attended the session.

The meeting brought together government officials and private-sector leaders to discuss investment strategies, technological development and policy support for the emerging AI semiconductor ecosystem.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260317010005198

March 13 (Asia Today) — South Korean Prime Minister Kim Min-seok met U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance at the White House in Washington on Wednesday to discuss bilateral investment, trade issues and developments on the Korean Peninsula.

The meeting came about 50 days after the two leaders first met during Kim’s visit to Washington in January.

Kim highlighted the passage of a special law supporting South Korean investment in the United States, which cleared the National Assembly earlier this week.

He said the legislation demonstrates Seoul’s commitment to implementing bilateral investment agreements and could contribute to revitalizing U.S. manufacturing and job creation.

Kim added that the measure could also accelerate implementation of agreements outlined in a joint fact sheet between the two countries, including cooperation in areas such as nuclear-powered submarines, nuclear energy and shipbuilding.

Vance welcomed the legislation, saying it provides a legal foundation for implementing investment agreements between the two countries, according to South Korea’s Prime Minister’s Office.

The two sides also discussed cooperation in critical minerals and issues related to non-tariff trade barriers.

Kim explained Seoul’s recent decision to allow U.S. companies to export mapping data from South Korea, describing it as a forward-looking step aimed at strengthening cooperation.

Vance praised the move and said the two countries should continue consultations on non-tariff trade barriers.

Kim also said issues previously raised by Vance during their January meeting – including concerns related to the e-commerce company Coupang and certain religious matters – are now being handled in a stable manner.

Vance said the United States respects South Korea’s domestic legal framework and thanked Seoul for continuing to communicate with Washington on issues of interest to the United States.

The leaders also exchanged views on the Korean Peninsula and reaffirmed that the door remains open for dialogue with North Korea.

They agreed to maintain close coordination on developments related to the peninsula.

South Korea’s Prime Minister’s Office said the meeting helped deepen personal trust between Kim and Vance and is expected to strengthen communication on key bilateral issues.

The office’s statement did not mention whether the two discussed the Section 301 trade investigation launched this week by the Office of the United States Trade Representative targeting several major trading partners, including South Korea.

However, the issue of non-tariff barriers raised during the meeting could be related to that investigation.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260313010003892