Hypo Venture Capital Zurich Headlines: U.S. names roster for 2011 Women’s World Cup

http://hypoventurecapital-news.com/

Almost 20 years have passed since the likes of Michelle Akers, Carin Jennings, Julie Foudy and Mia Hamm forever etched their names into soccer’s history book by winning the inaugural Women’s World Cup in China in 1991. Now, two decades later, another U.S. team will set out on a similar quest, and on Monday, Coach Pia Sundhage named the 21 players she will take to Europe next month to compete in the 2011 Women’s World Cup in Germany.
Had Kristine Lilly not decided to retire earlier this year, there would have been a direct link between “the ’91ers” and the 2011 side, and Lilly would have become the first player in soccer history — men’s or women’s — to play in six World Cups.
Instead, it will be up to several other veterans of previous campaigns to lead the charge for the Americans.
Chief among them are Christie Rampone, the 35-year-old defender and team captain who will be taking part in her fourth World Cup, as well as midfielder Shannon Boxx and forward Abby Wambach, who will each be playing in their third.
“We went to China for the Olympics in 2008 with Christie Rampone as our captain, and the way she is stepping up and the way she handles herself on and off the field, she is the best captain I’ve ever … played with,” said Sundhage, herself a veteran of the 1991 tournament when she played for Sweden.
Rampone is one of 14 players on the roster who were on the U.S. squad that won the gold medal at the Beijing Olympics. Eight of those 14 were starters, including Carli Lloyd, who scored the winning goal in extra time in the gold-medal match against Brazil.
The 2011 U.S. team consists entirely of professional players and the average age of the team is 27, with forward Alex Morgan the youngest at 21.
Despite the veterans on the team, the U.S. squad is short of actual World Cup experience. Only nine of the players have previously taken part in the quadrennial world championship, and only Rampone was on the U.S. team that won it all in 1999.
Still, Sundhage said she was more than satisfied with the roster she has put together for the 16-team event. “We have people that organize defensively, people that can step up when it really matters, people that are good in the air, people that are fighters, and tricky ones as well,” she said.
The U.S. has not won the Women’s World Cup since 1999, when it defeated China on penalty kicks in front of 90,185 at the Rose Bowl. It lost to Germany in the semifinals in 2003 and to Brazil in the semifinals in 2007.
Nevertheless, it is ranked No. 1 in the world and is among the favorites for the June 26-July 17 tournament, along with host and defending champion Germany, and Brazil.
The U.S. will play North Korea, Colombia and Sweden in the first round, starting with the Koreans on June 28 in Dresden.
The full U.S. roster, by position:
Goalkeepers: Nicole Barnhart, Jill Loyden, Hope Solo.
Defenders: Rachel Buehler, Stephanie Cox, Ali Krieger, Amy LePeilbet, Heather Mitts, Christie Rampone, Becky Sauerbrunn.
Midfielders: Shannon Boxx, Tobin Heath, Lori Lindsey, Carli Lloyd, Heather O’Reilly, Megan Rapinoe, Lindsay Tarpley.
Forwards: Lauren Cheney, Alex Morgan, Amy Rodriguez, Abby Wambach.

Posted in Business, Media, News, News Directory, Technology

Tagged financial crisis, financial news, hypo venture capital, hypo venture capital zurich news, latest headlines economy

Hypo Venture Capital Zurich Headlines: U.S. names roster for 2011 Women’s World Cup

http://hypoventurecapital-news.com/2011/05/hypo-venture-capital-zurich-headlines-u-s-names-roster-for-2011-womens-world-cup/

Now, two decades later, another U.S. team will set out on a similar quest, and on Monday, Coach Pia Sundhage named the 21 players she will take to Europe next month to compete in the 2011 Women’s World Cup in Germany.
Had Kristine Lilly not decided to retire earlier this year, there would have been a direct link between “the ’91ers” and the 2011 side, and Lilly would have become the first player in soccer history — men’s or women’s — to play in six World Cups.
Instead, it will be up to several other veterans of previous campaigns to lead the charge for the Americans.
Chief among them are Christie Rampone, the 35-year-old defender and team captain who will be taking part in her fourth World Cup, as well as midfielder Shannon Boxx and forward Abby Wambach, who will each be playing in their third.
“We went to China for the Olympics in 2008 with Christie Rampone as our captain, and the way she is stepping up and the way she handles herself on and off the field, she is the best captain I’ve ever … played with,” said Sundhage, herself a veteran of the 1991 tournament when she played for Sweden.
Rampone is one of 14 players on the roster who were on the U.S. squad that won the gold medal at the Beijing Olympics. Eight of those 14 were starters, including Carli Lloyd, who scored the winning goal in extra time in the gold-medal match against Brazil.
The 2011 U.S. team consists entirely of professional players and the average age of the team is 27, with forward Alex Morgan the youngest at 21.
Despite the veterans on the team, the U.S. squad is short of actual World Cup experience. Only nine of the players have previously taken part in the quadrennial world championship, and only Rampone was on the U.S. team that won it all in 1999.
Still, Sundhage said she was more than satisfied with the roster she has put together for the 16-team event. “We have people that organize defensively, people that can step up when it really matters, people that are good in the air, people that are fighters, and tricky ones as well,” she said.
The U.S. has not won the Women’s World Cup since 1999, when it defeated China on penalty kicks in front of 90,185 at the Rose Bowl. It lost to Germany in the semifinals in 2003 and to Brazil in the semifinals in 2007.
Nevertheless, it is ranked No. 1 in the world and is among the favorites for the June 26-July 17 tournament, along with host and defending champion Germany, and Brazil.
The U.S. will play North Korea, Colombia and Sweden in the first round, starting with the Koreans on June 28 in Dresden.
The full U.S. roster, by position:
Goalkeepers: Nicole Barnhart, Jill Loyden, Hope Solo.
Defenders: Rachel Buehler, Stephanie Cox, Ali Krieger, Amy LePeilbet, Heather Mitts, Christie Rampone, Becky Sauerbrunn.
Midfielders: Shannon Boxx, Tobin Heath, Lori Lindsey, Carli Lloyd, Heather O’Reilly, Megan Rapinoe, Lindsay Tarpley.

Hypo Venture Capital Zurich Headlines: LinkedIn looks for $32 to $35 per share in IPO

http://hypoventurecapital-news.com/2011/05/hypo-venture-capital-zurich-headlines-linkedin-looks-for-32-to-35-per-share-in-ipo/

NEW YORK — Professional networking website LinkedIn hopes to sell its stock for $32 to $35 per share in an upcoming initial public offering. Its IPO may encourage other growing Internet services to make their stock market debuts during the next year.
The price target, set in a filing Monday with the Securities and Exchange Commission, signals that LinkedIn is nearly ready to complete its IPO. The shares are expected to be sold May 18, according to IPO analyst Scott Sweet. The stock would then begin trading under the ticker symbol of “LNKD” on the New York Stock Exchange.
The company’s debut could offer a preview of investor demand for other popular online services that connect people with common interests. Although they haven’t set timetables, Facebook, Twitter, the online deals site Groupon and the game maker Zynga are among the other social-networking services expected to go public.
With more than 500 million users, Facebook is considered to the hottest commodity of them all. The 7-year-old company’s market value has been pegged at $50 billion, based on a private investment in January.
The company said the offering could raise up to $274 million, including the cash that would to go existing shareholders who are selling part of their stakes in the IPO. Based
on the IPO’s price targets, LinkedIn would have a market value of $3 billion to $3.3 billion.Former PayPal executive Reid Hoffman founded LinkedIn eight years ago. Now a venture capitalist, Hoffman remains LinkedIn’s chairman and largest shareholder with a projected post-IPO stake worth $600 million to $665 million.
LinkedIn’s stock offering is expected to attract a lot of attention because it revolves around a well-known Internet brand with more than 100 million registered members.
Most of LinkedIn’s revenue comes from fees it charges for recruiters and businesses that want expanded access to LinkedIn’s website to help fill job openings. The company also sells online ads.
Last year, LinkedIn had net income of $3.4 million on revenue of $243 million. Its revenue totaled $94 million during the first three months of this year, more than doubling from the same period last year.
LinkedIn will offer 4.8 million shares. The company’s current stockholders, including Hoffman, Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs and publishing company McGraw-Hill, will sell 3 million shares.
The company, which is based in Mountain View, Calif., said there will be 94.5 million common shares outstanding after the IPO.
After paying investment banking fees and other expenses, LinkedIn estimated it will collect nearly $147 million from the IPO at the midrange target price of $33.50. LinkedIn plans to use the money for operations and possibly to buy other companies.

Hypo Venture Capital Zurich Headlines: Pakistan Will Allow U.S. to Question Bin Laden’s Wives

http://hypoventurecapital-news.com/2011/05/hypo-venture-capital-zurich-headlines-pakistan-will-allow-u-s-to-question-bin-laden%E2%80%99s-wives/

Pakistani military and police officials cordon off a street beside Osama Bin Laden’s final hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Photographer: Aamir Qureshi/AFP/Getty Images
Pakistan will allow the U.S. to question the three wives of Osama bin Laden who were with him in the compound where American commandos killed the al-Qaeda leader last week, granting a measure of cooperation amid tensions following the raid.
The Obama administration expects to get access to the women soon, based on a response from the Pakistani government, a U.S. official said yesterday on condition of anonymity. The specific timing of the access wasn’t set, the official said.
The decision followed verbal skirmishing between the two countries. Pakistani officials have said that the U.S. should have informed Pakistan of the operation in advance. U.S. officials have questioned how much Pakistani authorities knew about bin Laden’s presence in their country.
The Obama administration said yesterday that it wouldn’t apologize for entering Pakistan to raid bin Laden’s compound, as the South Asian country’s prime minister tried to counter domestic criticism over the military’s failure to detect and stop the U.S. attack.
“We obviously take the statements and concerns of the Pakistani government seriously,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said yesterday, speaking after Pakistan’s prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, addressed the Parliament in Islamabad. “But we also do not apologize for the actions that we took.”
U.S. Reliance
The Obama administration, while expressing suspicions about Pakistani aid to bin Laden, aims to preserve a relationship that has allowed CIA drone strikes against militants and at least partly stemmed the flow of fighters into neighboring Afghanistan. The U.S. also relies on Pakistan for transit of supplies from ports on its southern coast for the U.S.-led coalition fighting insurgents in the war next door.
The U.S. will know soon “just how and by whom bin Laden was protected in Pakistan for a decade as it goes through the computers and documents snatched in the raid,” Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and counterterrorism adviser to the U.S. government, said by e-mail. Evidence of ties between bin Laden and Pakistan’s army or intelligence services would move the relationship “from crisis to confrontation,” he said.
The three wives are among an unspecified number of women and children who survived the assault on the compound and were left behind.

Three Wives

Pakistani authorities have said they found the three wives and nine children at the site. In addition to bin Laden, three men and one of their wives were killed during the raid. Only bin Laden’s body was removed, according to the U.S. One of the men killed was his son, and the other two were couriers; no other adult males were left behind, the U.S. official said.
While there has been a war of words, the Pentagon says supply convoys to Afghanistan continue to operate and Pakistan has not imposed any new restrictions on the 300 U.S. military trainers and other personnel who have been working with the Pakistani army to improve its counterinsurgency capabilities.
The U.S. also said it had no plans to pull the CIA’s station chief from Pakistan after at least one newspaper and a television station there named someone they said held that position.

Pakistani Investigation

Gilani, the prime minister, said the army would lead an investigation of intelligence failures that allowed bin Laden to go undetected. Authorities also will review why its military failed to react to the U.S. operation that killed the al-Qaeda chief in a house in Abbottabad, near the country’s most prestigious military academy.
President Barack Obama, in an interview broadcast May 8 on CBS’s “60 Minutes” program, said the U.S. suspects that bin Laden had a support network in Pakistan and that the government there needs to investigate.
Gilani said bin Laden’s killing was “justice” for the terrorist attacks the al-Qaeda leader had ordered, including those against Pakistani citizens. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, had provided leads that eventually helped locate bin Laden, he said.
Gilani was less critical of the U.S. than he might have been, said Marvin Weinbaum, an Afghanistan and Pakistan analyst in the State Department’s bureau of intelligence research until 2003 and now a scholar in residence at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

‘Worst Nightmare’

“Pakistan’s political leadership knows this is a relationship that is important” to its survival, Weinbaum said in a telephone interview. The “worst nightmare” for Pakistani leaders is that they push the U.S. toward India, he said.
Obama spoke with India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh yesterday morning about the raid and the “strategic partnership” between the two nations, the administration said in a statement.
Gilani may have been alluding to India when he cautioned against “wrong conclusions” from the raid. India’s military chief, General V.K. Singh, and Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik said last week that their country also had the capability to strike against terrorists inside Pakistani cities, The Times of India reported on May 6.
While ordinary Pakistanis and opposition parties have demanded answers from the government and the military, analysts said the administration of President Asif Ali Zardari was unlikely to be badly damaged.
“The U.S. has yet not blamed the Pakistani government for bin Laden’s presence. Zardari’s biggest challenge now is to control the damage by conducting a transparent inquiry,” said Nasir Zaidi, an analyst at the Institute of Regional Studies in Islamabad.
Zardari’s main opposition, the Pakistan Muslim League led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, will meet in Islamabad today to discuss the U.S. raid.
“Pakistan’s independence has been hurt and Pakistanis are deeply worried,” Sharif told reporters in Lahore yesterday. “The nation may face a crisis if the right steps are not taken.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Viola Gienger in Washington at vgienger@bloomberg.net; Haris Anwar in Islamabad at hanwar2@bloomberg.net

Hypo Venture Capital Zurich Headlines:Why the bin Laden bounce went “boing”

http://hypoventurecapital-news.com/2011/05/hypo-venture-capital-zurich-headlineswhy-the-bin-laden-bounce-went-%E2%80%9Cboing%E2%80%9D/

Stocks rallied today on surprisingly strong payroll data — but what happened to the exuberant post-bin Laden rally that was supposed to ignite financial markets five days ago? Following the May 1 shooting of Osama bin Laden, the markets rose, then shrugged for the rest of the week until employment data buoyed Wall Street today.
Was that all there was to the bin Laden bounce? The risk in buying stocks, bonds and perhaps commodities eased for a day. But euphoria never lasts long.
The myth that you can benefit from short-term rallies is a dangerous one. By the time you get in the game, the global village has moved on.
There are so many other dragons in the world economy. Killing one terrorist won’t mean a hill of beans. You still need to focus on your bottom line. The uncertainty premium is still soaring. Speculative barometers of financial fear — precious metals — have retreated as well, but have pushed record highs in recent weeks.
“The geopolitical risks remain,” said New York University Economist Nouriel Roubini on May 2, …”we have to address our own problems.”
Let me count the ways that make markets even more volatile than ever. Following the fizzle of the bin Laden rally, the VIX volatility index rose eight percent. This is a widely used gauge of stock market fear.
The U.S. bond market is no less skittish. The U.S. must either raise its debt ceiling or make draconian budget cuts — a bad idea during an economic recovery — or face default on its national $14.3 trillion debt by August 2. Bonds are already under pressure from the widely held idea that inflation will be back in a big way.
If the markets somehow became safer for long-term income investors, then you would have seen a major retreat in gold prices. That didn’t happen.
The idea that you should pay attention to short-term blips or news events as major harbingers of economic activity should be cleansed from your mind. It will distract you from some productive long-term thinking on markets.
Let’s take a look at the last decade to get an idea of how short-term investing can distract you.
As you know, the 2000s or “naughty aughties,” was a poor one for large-company stocks, which lost an average 0.9 percent during the decade. Here’s what else was going on in history courtesy of Ibbotson Associates’ “SBBI Classic 2011 Yearbook”:

• If you were a nervous Nellie and kept all of your money in ultra-safe, but low-yielding, U.S. Treasury Bills in the last decade, you would eked out a 2.8 return. That’s slightly ahead of inflation for the decade (2.5 percent), but a loser if those bonds were in a taxable account.
• Leading the pack in the last decade were long-term government and corporate bonds at 7.7 percent and 7.6 percent, respectively.
• Let’s go back even further to the 1990s, 1980s and 1970s. You would think that big-company stocks were in their heyday, right? You’re partially right. Blue chips led all comers with an 18-percent return in the ’90s and 17.6-percent return in the ’80s.
• But take a close look at which category came up in second place in the 80s and 90s, then led last year with a nearly 10-percent return: small-company stocks. The little guys also dominated in the dismal 1970s (up 11.5 percent); 1960s (up 15 percent); and 1940s (up 21 percent), half of which was marred by the Great Depression.

If you’re not a trader, think broad, deep and long-term. You can own most of the above-mentioned U.S. stocks and bonds with two exchange-traded funds: The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond exchange-traded fund, a staple in my income portfolio; and the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF.
You can almost never predict what recent historical events will mean over time. Short-term events rarely predict the future; the world may be a safer place in the short term, yet terrorism may rear its ugly head in reprisals. Wealth building takes time and vision. If you don’t have one, get a financial plan. Better yet, get a life plan.

Hypo Venture Capital Zurich Headlines:Republicans Make Power Play To Gut Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

http://hypoventurecapital-news.com/2011/05/hypo-venture-capital-zurich-headlinesrepublicans-make-power-play-to-gut-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/

On Thursday, while House Republicans were dealing with a small Medicare privatization snafu, their Senate counterparts laid down an impossible marker. Forty four of their 47 members have signed on to a letter threatening to filibuster any nominee to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unless it is dramatically weakened.
“We will not support the consideration of any nominee, regardless of party affiliation, to be the CFPB director until the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is reformed,” reads a letter, co-authored by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), ranking member of the Banking Committee.
Congress created the CFPB, despite GOP opposition, as part of the Wall Street reform law, to protect consumers from predatory actors in the financial industry. Its intellectual godmother is Elizabeth Warren, whom President Obama has tasked with standing up the agency. Despite her popularity, she’s been a long-shot to run the Bureau when it officially launches — largely because of financial industry and Republican (and even some Democratic) opposition. Indeed, former Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) — who poured cold water on the idea of nominating Warren — warned that if Democrats tried to jam a director through the Senate without bipartisan support, Republicans would go to war against the Bureau and try to gut it.
Turns out that’s what’s happening anyhow. Who could’ve predicted?
Specifically, Republicans want the CFPB subject to the appropriations process — something it avoids as an entity housed in the Federal Reserve. They also want to delegate more decision making authority away from the Bureau’s director, and give other regulators — many of which are captured by the financial industry — opportunities to block CFPB rules.
This shouldn’t be a winning fight, if Democrats don’t want it to be. The financial reform law is still fairly popular, and the CFPB is the most popular part of it. President Obama could use recess appointment to fill the vacancy, and take the fight public. At this point it’s a question of how he and Senate Democrats decide to handle it.
Note, not signing the letter were Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and John Ensign (R-NV), who stepped down before it was released. Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who along with Brown voted for the financial reform law, added their names to the roster.

Hypo Venture Capital Zurich Headlines:Britain’s commitment to climate finance

http://hypoventurecapital-news.com/2011/05/hypo-venture-capital-zurich-headlinesbritains-commitment-to-climate-finance/

BRITISH Foreign Secretary William Hague has described climate change as “perhaps the 21st century’s biggest foreign policy challenge”.
He has stressed that “a world which is failing to respond to climate change is one in which the values embodied in the United Nations will not be met”.
Indeed, the UN Charter makes clear that a central purpose of that organisation is to “achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character”.
Climate change is just such a problem — and its impacts and costs fall disproportionately on developing countries. This is deeply unfair. So it was only right that in Cancun last December, the 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change reaffirmed the commitment from developed countries in Copenhagen in December 2009 to jointly mobilise US$100 billion (RM300 billion) a year by 2020 to climate finance to address the adaptation needs of developing countries and help them to limit their carbon emissions.
The United Kingdom takes this commitment seriously and recognises the need for urgent action. The British government has, therefore, allocated STG2.9 billion (RM14.3 billion) of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to international climate finance for the period 2011/12 to 2014/15 (including our Fast Start commitment).
This will be administered through our International Climate Fund (ICF), which has just been formally established. We expect to spend about 50 per cent of the total amount on adaptation in poor and vulnerable countries, with around 30 per cent for work to reduce carbon emissions and 20 per cent for forestry.
We have three overall priorities for ICF funding, which we will deliver through both bilateral and multilateral channels in a way which maximises its impact and value for money:
- To show that building low carbon climate resilient growth at scale is both feasible and desirable;
- To support adaptation in poor countries and help build an effective international framework on climate change; and,
- To drive innovation, creating new partnerships with the private sector to support low carbon climate resilient growth.
The ICF will also fund the climate element of an Advocacy Fund to support the poorest countries to take part more effectively in international negotiations; this will be formally established later this year.
We hope this funding by the UK will play an important role in helping to mobilise ambitious global action on climate change. As a developing country, Malaysia could potentially be a beneficiary of this fund.
But the UK is the only major donor so far to have made specific financial commitments up to 2015. More is needed to meet the Copenhagen commitment of US$100 billion a year by 2020. We look to other donors, too, from the developed world to make significant and ambitious financial pledges, and we look to businesses to play an important role, since we expect the target to be reached through a mix of public and private finance.
As the Stern Review in 2006 made clear, the clock is ticking. With every passing year, the global cost of effective action to tackle climate change grows greater. The time to act is now.