Thursday, 6 February 2014

Volvo doubles job cuts to 4,400

World's No 2 lorry-maker and Sweden's biggest private sector employer expands cuts in second year of scheme to boost profit margins
Volvo
Volvo, which employs about 115,000 workers, said the reduction of jobs and consultants was an expansion of a plan to cut 2,000 positions announced last yea. Photograph: Jason Szenes/EPA
The world's No 2 lorry-maker Volvo will increase its job cuts to 4,400, more than double its original plan, after currency effects and the cost of launching new models muted a rise in quarterly earnings.
But Sweden's biggest private sector employer also unveiled a stronger-than-expected order intake in the fourth quarter on growth in North America.
"The order intake for trucks was the main positive surprise," Swedish bank Handelsbanken said in a research note.
Volvo, vying with Germany's Daimler to be market leader, posted fourth-quarter operating earnings excluding restructuring charges of SEK3.08bn (£289m) from SEK2.19bn a year earlier, below a forecast SEK3.8bn in a Reuters poll of analysts.
Sweden's top company by sales, whose profitability has traditionally lagged behind rivals such as Scania and US group Paccar, is in the second year of a vast scheme to boost profit margins, in part by cutting staff.
Volvo, which employs about 115,000 workers, said the reduction of jobs and consultants unveiled on Thursday was an expansion of a plan to cut 2,000 positions announced last year and it would involve staff in its lorries business and in areas such as sales and marketing.
"The personnel reductions will begin immediately and a majority will be implemented during 2014," chief executive Olof Persson said in a statement.
Over the past year, Volvo's earnings have been hit by the cost of launching and bringing into production new lorry models in the group's biggest ever overhaul of its range.
"We have a further couple of quarters before we are through the industrialisation of the new generation of trucks and the phase-out of the old generations," Persson said.
Gothenburg-based Volvo set a target in 2012 to raise its operating margin by three percentage points by the end of 2015.
The efforts so far have had little impact on the bottom line and pressure is building on Volvo, which also makes construction equipment, buses and engines, to produce a higher rate of profitability than the 2.9% margin in 2013.
By contrast, Scania last week posted a 10.1% margin.
Christer Gardell, managing partner of activist fund Cevian and Volvo's second biggest owner by votes, told a newspaper last month the company needed to stop making excuses and start delivering.
But looking ahead, several factors may benefit Volvo.
After its launch of new lorry ranges last year, 2014 should see the brand-new models underpin growth while costs for research and development, a lower headcount and streamlining of its network of workshops should bolster profitability.
Order bookings of its lorries in the fourth quarter held up better than expected as demand in North America made up for a slowdown in Europeafter new emission rules came into force.
Volvo, which makes heavy-duty lorries under the Renault, Mack and UD brands as well as its own name, said order intake of its trucks rose 12% year-on-year in the fourth quarter, topping the 1% decline seen by analysts.
The company also left unchanged its forecasts for lorry markets this year, implying a slight decline in Europe and modest growth in North America and Brazil.
The view was roughly in line with that of Daimler, which reported separately on Thursday, though it expected a slightly slower development in Brazil and the potential for somewhat stronger growth in North America

Sandra Bullock: the pain of Gravity

Alfonso Cuarón directs Geroge Clooney and Sandra Bullock on the set of Gravity.
Alfonso Cuarón directs George Clooney and Sandra Bullock on the set of Gravity. Photograph: Sam Jones
The makers of Gravity won't really come back down to Earth till the awards season is over, but even if the movie doesn't win any Baftas or Academy Awards, there is a sense of triumph in their simply having got the film made. They can also console themselves with the wall-to-wall acclaim and the $700m-odd in worldwide box office, but it's inarguable that, more than any other movie of the past year, Alfonso Cuarón's space epic pushed back the frontiers of film-making – to the extent that most viewers couldn't fathom how on earth (or elsewhere) the film was even made. What is easy to forget is that, initially, Cuarón and his team didn't have the slightest idea how to make it either.
  1. Gravity
  2. Production year: 2013
  3. Countries: Rest of the world, USA
  4. Cert (UK): 12A
  5. Runtime: 91 mins
  6. Directors: Alfonso Cuaron
  7. Cast: George Clooney, Sandra Bullock
  8. More on this film
Compared with your standard movie project,Gravity was more like trying to land somebody on the moon. It was, after all, a vast collective effort aimed at getting a couple of people into space for a short while. Nobody had done something like it before; nobody knew if it was possible given the available technology and the allotted timeframe. It was a genuine leap into the unknown.
"Every day, we thought: 'This is not going to work,'" says Cuarón. "It was a process of trial and error, and little, little hints of hope, and also a lot of mistakes. The only test screening that we had, months before the film was finished, was a disaster."
Sandra Bullock agrees: "We had no idea if it would be successful. You'd explain that it was an avant-garde, existential film on loss and survival in space and everyone would be like: 'OK …' It didn't sound like a film people would be drawn to."
Cuarón remembers watching the moon landings live on TV. As a boy, he dreamed of being an astronaut. But he never set out to reinvent the wheel with Gravity. "The thing is, I'm not a technological person," he explains. "When I finished the screenplay, I thought: 'We can do this in about a year.' [It took four-and-a-half years.] It's a simple story of a woman in space alone. For me it was a small, intimate film – yes, with some visual effects, but that was it."
Alfonso Cuarón and Sandra Bullock.Alfonso Cuarón and Sandra Bullock. Photograph: Robert Ascroft
He didn't even plan to make a space movie. "Before the story, you start with the theme," Cuarón says. And in a word, that theme was "adversity". Long before space was ever mentioned, Cuarón was discussing survival scenarios with his son and co-writer Jonás. Their reference points were two utterly un-spacey films: Steven Spielberg's Duel and Robert Bresson's A Man Escaped – both propulsive, stripped-down thrillers with an existential dimension. "A Man Escaped is not about a man escaping from prison, it's about a man transcending the metaphysical walls of his existence," Cuarón says. They talked about hostile, isolated locations, such as the desert (Jonás had just written a desert movie, Desierto, which he recently started shooting). "Then we said: 'OK, let's take it to an extreme place where there's nothing.' I had this image of an astronaut spinning into space away from human communication. The metaphor was already so obvious."
Adversity became more than just the theme once they started trying to figure out how to make Gravity. Cuarón already had a reputation for pushing beyond accepted norms. Despite his gentle demeanour, the 52-year-old director can be a taskmaster on set, according to colleagues. There's a story that when he was directing Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, he wasn't satisfied with Buckbeak the hippogriff – a digitally modelled eagle/horse creature. Cuarón thought it looked far too clean. He told the effects people to go back and show him a hippogriff after it had just been mating in the woods. Sure enough, he got a convincingly wild beast rather than a nice bit of animation. If you look closely, you can even see Buckbeak casually shitting on the forest floor the first time Harry meets him.
Gravity was a new set of challenges: simulated weightlessness, thephysics of space, replicating complex machinery – all compounded by ambitiously long takes. "When I realised it was going to be so technological, I was turned off, because that's not the process I wanted to get into," says Cuarón. "But then you realise all that technology is just a tool for the cinematic expression you want to convey. We explored every single available technology and saw it would not apply, but then you think: 'OK, if I combine this with this...'"
Explaining in detail how Gravity was made will take several discs of a deluxe DVD box set, but in brief, Cuarón credits the ingenuity of his crew, particularly cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki and effects supervisorTim Webber. "I don't understand that distinction where people want to put art like a religious experience above everything else. Before 19th-century romanticism, humanity and art and technology were one and the same. So I consider a lot of these people to be artists in their own right."
Lubezki had a eureka moment at a Peter Gabriel gig. He was inspired by the LED stage lighting to put the actors inside a giant light box. Screens on the inside walls of this 9ft cube matched the lighting on the actors' faces to the virtual environment that they would eventually be spinning around in – once it was digitally rendered, months later. Only one actor could fit inside, usually suspended on a special wire harness like a human puppet, occasionally supported by a clamp around one leg, or some other medieval-sounding device. Robotic arms adapted from the car industry moved both actors and camera in pre-programmed moves to match the computer animation.
George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are hooked up together on the set of Gravity.George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are hooked up together on the set of Gravity. Photograph: Sam Jones
If this giant lightbox was Gravity's Apollo capsule, Bullock and George Clooney were its test pilots, and most of the time they were flying blind. "At least they had the moon to look at when they landed on it!" says Bullock. "We couldn't see what we were supposedly looking at. We saw blackness, we saw white light boxes, we saw machinery, maybe pieces of pod or Soyuz. We had to imagine it all."
Bullock's working day on the shoot sounds more like a complex medical procedure than an acting gig. She describes it as a "morose headspace". She was strung or strapped inside the lightbox for up to 10 hours a day. She was usually in complete silence, save for instructions coming through an earpiece, and observed only by a camera on the end of a robotic arm. It was as if she was acting in total privacy, she says: "The only people I'd see was if someone came in to adjust the rig or fix something. Everything else was behind this black curtain on this vast black sound stage. Often I would just stay in whatever apparatus I was in because it was too long to get in and out of it. You learn to zone out. I don't know if meditation is the right word but it was that principle. I would either play music or just close my eyes and stay where I was – until the end of the day where you'd put your own head back on and go outside and have the benefit of sunshine."
At least it was an asset in the "adversity" department. "My situation was somewhat like the situation the character was in," she says, laughing. "There's no one around, you're frustrated, nothing works, you're in pain, you're lonely, you want someone to fix everything for you but they can't – all those things I was feeling."
And when she wasn't literally hanging around, Bullock had to manoeuvre through precisely choreographed moves, to synch with the virtual environment she would be inserted into. "That was the most frustrating part," she says. "You thought you'd executed it properly then you'd hear 'Sandy …' in the earpiece, and either Alfonso or Tim would say: 'At 16.5 seconds, your hand was three inches too far forward, it needs to come back. Literally, if you were one inch out of place you had to start over. If you were two seconds too long in the scene, you had to start over. It was so angering and nerve-racking, but you just kept doing it till you got it right."
With all the physical strain, Bullock required regular visits from a physiotherapist to "put me back together," she says. She twisted her pelvis and suffered multiple bruises and cuts, but she bore it better than her co-star. Having sustained a serious back injury in 2005 (while making Syriana), Clooney found the harness contraptions agonising. "He's always in an extreme amount of pain," Bullock says, "and he had to get into that rig every day. He was only there for three weeks, but George had a lot more to deal with than I did."
The fact that the two are old friends helped. Bullock is unsurprised by Clooney's recent webchat where he joked: "Sandy drinks so much that oftentimes it's just hard to keep her upright."
"In order to tolerate George I need to consume large amounts of alcohol," she fires back. "So I only really drank for three weeks, to be honest – while he was there."
Bullock describes the British crew, though, as "civilised". "I think half the time they felt sorry for me, so they were extra gentle and extra kind. My priority was my son, Louis, so they created an entire jungle for him to play in, all inside this concrete jungle. So all I had to do was step off the soundstage and see this wonderul place they had made for him. They didn't have to do that but they did."
Eyebrows have been raised by Gravity's nominations for the Bafta for outstanding British film, as if Britain were desperately reclaiming the movie, now that it's a hit. But as Bullock points out, she and Clooney were the only non-Britons involved. Even Cuarón is an honorary Brit. He came to London to make Harry Potter, 12 years ago, and has lived and worked here ever since. It's a better place to bring up his two children, he says, and when he began to realise the complexity of Gravity, he decided he could only do it with Tim Webber and Framestore, the London-based effects house, with whom he worked on Harry Potter and Children Of Men. "I consider myself part of the British film community," he says.
Gravity wasn't simply an exercise in addressing and overcoming adversity; the whole idea was borne out of it, too, Cuarón says. The reason he was thinking about adversity was because he was beset by it in his own life. At the time of writing Gravity, he had recently been through a divorce, and was reeling from the collapse of another project, a children's film starring Charlotte Gainsbourg. "I went through one of those things that when it rains, it shits," he says. "Suddenly every single angle around your life becomes very challenging and very painful: personal, work, health, everything."
Out of this world: Gravity.Out of this world: Gravity. Photograph: Sportsphoto Ltd/Allstar
Bullock has had her own issues in recent years. After winning an Oscar in 2010 for The Blind Side, she went through a fairly public divorce from her husband, motorbike builder Jesse James. She had also just adopted her baby son. She took a two-year break from acting, saying she felt "sad and scared".
"We all have adversity. It's there," Bullock says. "You can bring all your adversity to work, but if it has no bearing on the way the story's being told, you just have to leave your life behind and put yourself in her shoes."
"When you're working, you have more detachment than in your life," says Cuarón. "So the way of addressing adversity at work starts informing how to address adversity in life. Being able, like Sandra's character, to put your feet on the ground is very gratifying. It's like Schopenhauer said, people tend to believe that adversity is this extraordinary thing in humanity; adversity is the norm. It is extraordinary when you don'texperience adversity. Adversity shapes who you are and how you deal with life

Manchester United target Kroos reveals breakdown in Bayern Munich contract talks

Manchester United target Kroos reveals breakdown in Bayern Munich contract talks
The 24-year-old, who has competed with summer signing Thiago Alcantara for first-team action this season, has yet to commit his long-term future to the Bundesliga giants
Reported Manchester United target Toni Kroos has fuelled speculation surrounding his future by revealing he remains unable to agree a new contract with Bayern Munich.

The 24-year-old attacking midfielder, whose current deal expires in the summer of 2015, was heavily linked with a January move to Old Trafford.

While Kroos insists he is happy to stay at the Allianz Arena, he freely admits he is no closer to committing his long-term future to the European champions.

"Much has been written, especially in the last few days, about my sporting future," Kroos wrote on his official Facebook page. "But you shouldn't believe everything in some newspapers.

"The fact is I am very happy to play for Bayern and my position in the team is very good. The fact is also that we couldn't agree a new contract.

"Since it runs until 2015 this is not a big problem, and we will see what the future brings.

"My focus is on the sport side of things and we will do everything possible to complete the season as successfully as last season."

Lewandowski: Szczesny wanted me at Arsenal

Lewandowski: Szczesny wanted me at Arsenal
The Borussia Dortmund forward has revealed that his Poland team-mate urged him to move to the Emirates, and that Gunners staff watched him train
Robert Lewandowski has revealed compatriot Wojciech Szczesny tried to persuade him to sign for Arsenalover Bayern Munich.
The Borussia Dortmund striker was free to speak to other clubs in January given he had just six months to run on his deal at Signal Iduna Park - though he was always widely expected to sign for the Bundesliga champions.
Real Madrid had been linked with hijacking the deal, but Arsenal were also said to be interested in the Poland international.
And Lewandowski has now revealed that Gunners goalkeeper Szczesny attempted to convince him that the Emirates Stadium was the best option for him.
"I can confirm that Wojciech Szcesny tried to convince me to join Arsenal," the Bavarian-bound attacker told Polish newspaper Fakt.
"We had several talks about this. It was him who did most of the talking, how the club looks inside, what [Arsenal boss Arsene] Wenger thinks of me.
"When we trained before the Champions League game at Colney, there were important people from Arsenal at our sessions as well."
Lewandowski, who scored the winner in Dortmund's 2-1 victory at the Emirates back in October, will join Bayern as a free agent this summer.

A big slap on Indian education system..



Is the appointment of Satya Nadella a feather in India’s cap or a slap in the face for the Indian system? While Indian newspapers were over the moon about Nadella’s elevation, with some justification, there is another side to the story we need to consider: why is it that India’s tech and other geniuses flower only in the US or Silicon Valley? Satya Nadella Why is it that every India-origin person to win a Nobel after independence in the sciences is not an Indian citizen any more? Hargobind Khurana won the prize for medicine in 1968, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar for physics in 1983 and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan for chemistry in 2009. All of them flowered only because they left India, and not because they were Indians per se. They left India behind. In fact, Ramakrishnan was downright rude when Indians called to congratulate him in 2009. He said: “We are all human beings, and our nationality is simply an accident of birth.” He also complained about “all sorts of people” writing to him and “clogging up my email box. It takes me an hour or two to just remove their mails.” While his immediate reaction may seem churlish to us, underlying it all is the real issue: our “Indian” successes abroad have little to do with the fact that they are Indian. 

They succeed because they abandoned India. We need to ask ourselves: why does our system kill future heroes, while the US helps raise even ordinary Indians to iconic levels? It would not be out of place to mention that it is well-nigh impossible for 99 percent of Indian aspirants to get admissions even to an IIT or IIM, but it is far simpler to get into an Ivy League institution. If you don’t get into an IIM, you try Harvard. The short point: our system is designed to keep people out, not get them in. The true value of an IIT or IIM is not the intellectual capital they produce, but their filtering expertise – which keeps all but the superlisters out of these institutions. When the people entering the institution are the best among the best, they will shine no matter what the quality of faculty or the curriculum. Perhaps this comes from our caste system, where castes try and keep others out, but we are stuck with this system of exclusion. Our system encourages talkers rather than doers.We think this makes us “argumentative” and democratic, but what this actually makes us is obstructionist rather than problem solvers. Our politics is about name-calling and running others down, not about doing something yourself.

 A Narasimha Rao and a Vajpayee who achieved something are voted out; a UPA-1 which did little beyond distributing taxpayers’ resources is voted in. This is one reason why we celebrate the rare achievers so highly: TN Seshan, who armed the Election Commission with real teeth, Vinod Rai, who made CAG a household name, and E Sreedharan, the former boss of the Delhi Metro. And yet, we find the political class carping about them and calling them dictators. This is also the reason why we prefer autocratic rulers rather than democratic ones: we know we talk more than we act. To get things done, we prefer an autocrat to rule over us rather than exercise self-discipline as democrats. All our successful political parties are one-person shows. The latest heading in that direction is BJP – which was all talk and no achievement for 10 years in opposition till Narendra Modi came along and was lauded for being a doer. If leaders emerge from our system, it’s due to a historical accident. As Ramchandra Guha points out in his book Patriots and Partisans, if Lal Bahadur Shastri had lived five more years, Indira Gandhi would not have been PM and Sonia Gandhi would still be a housewife. We are risk-avoiders rather than risk takers. This is why we prescribe endless paperwork and bureaucracy for simple things like opening a bank account or buying a mobile phone connection. A terrorist would have used an untraceable mobile number – after which every Indian buying a mobile will be put through hoops to prove he is a bonafide consumer. 

This does not catch any terrorist, but the idea is for officials to avoid the risk that fingers will be pointed at you saying you did nothing to prevent terrorism. So orders will be issued to tighten the system and make things worse for everybody. A scam will happen somewhere. Suddenly files stop moving in every ministry. Forest clearances will take ages – or never happen. The risk of being seen as doing something wrong is great. And so the buck is passed to someone else in the system. Sonia and Rahul want to be seen as do-gooders. So the dirty work of reform will be handed over to Manmohan Singh – who is another risk-avoider. He will do nothing and allow the A Rajas to loot the exchequer rather than do his job. Doing nothing is safer than asking tough questions of his babus or ministers. The BJP and other opposition leaders know that populist laws like the Food Security and Land Acquisition laws will damage the fiscal balance. But they too avoid risks by keeping quiet when wrong laws are passed. As a people, we are risk-avoiders as well. We know the IITs and IIMs are the way to big jobs. So when our kids want to become artists or cricketers, we tell them to forget it and study for IIT-JEE or CAT, never mind your own passion. Our engineers stop being engineers and start coding; they then opt for doing an MBA and become lousy man managers.

 Meanwhile, our engineering companies are starved of engineers. We are simply unable to tolerate success. If Modi talks about a Gujarat model, everybody has to bring it down. If Rahul claims his government’s biggest achievement is the RTI, everyone will belittle it. If Chidambaram claims high growth as UPA’s success, the Left will say this growth is not helping the poor. If we say poverty has reduced, others will say it hasn’t. If it has, our definition of poverty must be wrong. We celebrate mediocrity, rather than excellence. Our system kills initiative rather than engender it. We want pliable yes-men and non-achievers around us, not non-conformists and people with ideas of their own. Our successes are more the result of accident than real effort. The 1991 external bankruptcy forced us to reform and liberalise. Manmohan Singh’s reformism ended with that accident. Another accident made him PM in 2004, but he did little to use this chance to reform further. We are paying the price for his risk-aversion. A Satya Nadella, who is from Manipal , would never have made it big in India since he is not from the IITs. But even IITians don’t flower much in an Indian corporate or academic environment; they leave India and prefer working with foreign firms. If Satya Nadella had remained in India, he would probably be working as a coder in Infosys or TCS. Earning a high salary no doubt, but an unlikely candidate for CEO.

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/india/nadella-as-microsoft-ceo-a-slap-in-the-face-for-indian-system-1374951.html?utm_source=ref_article

Wednesday, 5 February 2014

City needs to be better prepared for cyber-attacks, Bank of England warns

Basking shark
The results of Waking Shark II – based on a concerted cyber-attack against the UK financial sector by a hostile nation state with the aim of causing significant disruption within the wholesale market and supporting infrastructure – came as Vince Cable held a summit to discuss industry’s preparedness for such attacks. Photograph: Corbis
Britain's financial services sector needs to be ready to respond more quickly to cyber-attacks, the Bank of England warned on Wednesday, as it published the results of last year's stimulated attack on the markets.
Regulators also need to be provided with more information about any attack, the central bank said in its recommendations from the so-called Waking Shark II war-game in November in which 220 people from banks, regulators and others took part.
The Bank's financial policy committee has already called on banks to do more to prepare against cyber-attacks and Waking Shark II was part of the test set for the industry to establish if it was ready for such an event.
After the exercise – which the participants thought could have been more technically challenging – the Bank said there needed to be a better form of communication across the industry, possibly through the British Bankers' Association, and also the firms hit by cyber incidents need to inform "law enforcement" about the attack, as the activities were likely to be criminal.
The Bank also highlighted the role of the new cyber security information sharing partnership, known as CISP, and a so-called fusion cell which co-ordinates with government security services.
"The CISP platform was heavily used during the exercise, truncating three days of activity into a few hours. This highlights the value of the facility in identifying and responding to a cyber-event and also the amount of work required from the Fusion Cell in managing the information," the Bank of England said.
The results of Waking Shark II – based on a concerted cyber-attack against the UK financial sector by a hostile nation state with the aim of causing significant disruption within the wholesale market and supporting infrastructure – came as Vince Cable held a summit to discuss industry's preparedness for such attacks.
"Cyber-attacks are a serious and growing threat to British businesses, but it is particularly important that those industries providing essential services such as power, telecommunications and banking are adequately protected to avoid disruption to our everyday lives," Cable said.
The Waking Shark II exercise – the first one took place in 2011 – was also stimulated to take place on "triple witching day" when futures, options on stock indices and on individual stocks all expire on the day. The attack was assumed to take place over four days and involved firms' websites being unavailable, pricing problems occurring and liquidity drying up in the fixed income markets.
When CIPS was launched last March, the government highlighted the risks of such attacks with a list of examples such as one company loosing the equivalent a 20m page Word document and an attack on Paypal.

Google offers further search result concessions in EU anti-trust case

Google
Google has been the focus of a European commission investigation since November 2010. Photograph: Britta Pedersen/EPA
Google has offered further concessions to address regulatory concerns about its search results, the European commission said on Wednesday, taking the company a step closer to settling a three-year investigation and prevent a fine of up to $5bn (£3.1bn).
The world's dominant search engine has been the focus of a European commission investigation since November 2010, after more than a dozen complainants across Europe accused the company of promoting its own services at their expense.
Google has now made three attempts to resolve the case, with the latest moves looking like they will be enough to settle it.
"I believe that the new proposal obtained from Google after long and difficult talks can now address the commission's concerns," said competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia.
The commission said it would make a final decision after obtaining feedback from Google's rivals.
Reuters reported on 29 January that the EU's competition authority and Google were close to a deal to resolve the investigation.
Google's success in escaping possibly heavier sanctions mirrors a similar outcome in the United States last year, where Google received only a mild reprimand from the Federal Trade Commission.
Almunia, who has been in charge of anti-trust issues at the European commission since 2009, has developed a track record of resolving cases via settlements rather than fines.
Google's ability to resolve competition issues in two major regions without a fine stands in sharp contrast to rival Microsoft, whose prickly relations with EU regulators have landed it total fines of more than €2.2bn (£1.8bn) over the past decade.
Under its latest proposals Google, which has a 75% share of the European search market according to consultancy comScore, will let three rivals display their logos and web links in a prominent box, and content providers will be able to decide what material Google can use for its own services.
Google will also scrap restrictions that prevent advertisers from moving their campaigns to rival platforms such as Yahoo!'s search tool and Microsoft's Bing.