• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании536
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации14
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы171
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
20 апреля, 19:01

Auto parts makers aim to tap automated driving potential

AUTO parts makers are displaying automated driving technologies and other advanced services such as seat design at the Auto Shanghai 2017 show as they aim to tap the trend of automated driving in China’s

28 марта, 16:35

Should Value Investors Pick Valeo S.A. (VLEEY) Stock?

Is Valeo S.A. a great pick from the value investor's perspective right now? Read on to know more.

27 марта, 15:19

Сделка Intel и Mobileye: как изменится рынок беспилотных автомобилей?

У компаний в сфере ИТ, устремившихся на рынок решений для беспилотников, слишком мало опыта, чтобы наладить производство конечных продуктов. Лидерство в новом сегменте останется за автоконцернами

Выбор редакции
13 января, 17:47

Компания Valeo увеличила долю в Ichikoh Industries до 55%

Французский производитель автомобильных комплектующих Valeo заявил, что повысил долю в японском представителе отрасли Ichikoh Industries до 55,08%. Так, компания Valeo заплатила 408 йен ($3,57) за каждую бумагу Ichikoh, оценив последнюю в 322 млн евро ($342 млн). Напомним, что два месяца назад Valeo выдвинула предложение о намерении увеличить свою долю в капитале Ichikoh с 31,58% акций, бывших в ее распоряжении на тот момент.

Выбор редакции
13 января, 13:03

Компания Valeo увеличила долю в Ichikoh Industries до 55%

Французский производитель автомобильных комплектующих Valeo заявил, что повысил долю в японском представителе отрасли Ichikoh Industries до 55,08%. Так, компания Valeo заплатила 408 йен ($3,57) за каждую бумагу Ichikoh, оценив последнюю в 322 млн евро ($342 млн). Напомним, что два месяца назад Valeo выдвинула предложение о намерении увеличить свою долю в капитале Ichikoh с 31,58% акций, бывших в ее распоряжении на тот момент.

08 декабря 2016, 01:10

Stock Market Roundup Dec. 7: Stocks Gain Despite Biotech Sell-Off

The major indexes were up across the board on Wednesday, despite a massive sell-off in the biotechnology sector initiated by a new promise from President-elect Trump that he will be targeting drug price hikes.

30 ноября 2016, 00:56

5 Stocks to Buy on Record Eurozone Economic Sentiment

A separate survey from IHS Markit released last week showed that the economic bloc's PMI had surged to a record high over November.

15 ноября 2016, 16:21

Volkswagen's Audi Charged with Cheating on Emissions Tests

Volkswagen AG's (VLKAY) luxury brand, Audi is being investigated for irregularities related to emission levels of carbon dioxide in some automatic-transmission vehicles.

14 ноября 2016, 16:50

Toyota (TM) to Settle U.S. Truck Lawsuit for $3.4 Billion

Toyota Motor Corporation (TM) has agreed to settle a U.S. truck lawsuit by paying roughly $3.4 billion.

08 ноября 2016, 17:30

Cirrus Logic, Skechers, Valeo SA ADR, H Lundbeck AS and Quanta Services highlighted as Zacks Bull and Bear of the Day

Cirrus Logic, Skechers, Valeo SA ADR, H Lundbeck AS and Quanta Services highlighted as Zacks Bull and Bear of the Day

07 ноября 2016, 18:38

12 Fun Facts About U.S. Presidential Elections: Global Week Ahead

Here are 12 facts I found most interesting (or funny!), and relevant to this U.S. election of 2016.

27 октября 2016, 01:26

Donald Trump's Empty Blustering Reveals a Narcissist Who Can't Fathom Defeat

[This column was originally published by Truthdig.com] The highlight of the third and, thankfully, final presidential debate last Wednesday came roughly at the midway point, when Donald Trump refused to say that he would accept the results of November's election. Since then, Trump has doubled down on his position, declaring he would accept the outcome only if he wins and invoking the example of the contested presidential vote in 2000 to reinforce his right not to concede. His rationale--articulated with increasing vigor as his poll numbers have plummeted--is that the vote is "rigged" as a result of electoral irregularities. Like most of the loathsome rhetoric he's spewed since announcing his candidacy back in June 2015, Trump's pre-emptive refusal to recognize the election's outcome is an incendiary mix of personal pathology and magical thinking, racism and xenophobia, facts and legal distortion. In a column published in July, I discussed the Republican standard-bearer's personality, as analyzed by several leading mental-health experts who have followed his career closely. Their view is that Trump is a malignant narcissist--that he suffers from a well-defined psychological disorder marked by an exaggerated sense of self-importance and entitlement, an overinflated belief in the quality of his achievements and talent, a preoccupation with fantasies about success and power, and a lack of empathy for others. As a narcissist, Trump cannot countenance actual defeat or even the possibility of losing in an election that hasn't happened yet. His signature axiom is that he's a "winner." Hence, if he fails, it must be the fault of a rigged system--and the deceit and/or stupidity of those responsible for his undoing. The scapegoats in Trump's confabulated thinking include not only powerful forces such as the mainstream media and the Clinton campaign but also some of the nation's most vulnerable populations, particularly black and Hispanic voters. Such voters, he has charged--with allusions to inner-city neighborhoods in Philadelphia and elsewhere--will cast multiple ballots with fake or no identification documents. Illegal aliens, he's added, will beat a path en masse to polling booths around the country, while hordes of dead people who have not been purged from voting rolls somehow will manage to resurrect themselves and pull their levers or punch their chads for Hillary. In reality, of course, in-person voter-identification fraud virtually is nonexistent. A comprehensive 2014 study conducted by professor Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School Los Angeles found only 31 incidents of polling-place ID impersonation anywhere in the country since 2000. The total number of ballots cast nationwide, in general and primary elections during the 14-year period Levitt reviewed, exceeded 1 billion. The Bush administration reached similar findings regarding the incidence of in-person fraud in a five-year Justice Department probe completed in 2007. Much the same can be said for postmortem balloting. Dead men don't wear plaid, as comedian Steve Martin taught us in one of his funniest movies, and they don't vote, either. Nor do the living impersonate the dead in order to cast ballots, at least in any appreciable numbers. As Levitt concluded in another study, this one funded by the Brennan Center for Justice based in New York City, nearly all allegations of dead people voting have stemmed from mismatched death records and voter rolls, with ballots cast by living individuals whose names matched or were similar to the names of people who had passed away. Nonetheless, millions of Trump supporters have bought into their leader's lunacy. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released last Friday, only half of Republicans are prepared to accept Clinton as their commander in chief if she is elected. Worse, nearly 70 percent of GOP respondents indicated that a Clinton victory would come about because of illegal voting or vote rigging. It would be a different situation if Trump had decided to take up the mantle of Bernie Sanders and educate the nation about the many ways our electoral process actually is rigged. But he hasn't--and he can't--because he's part of the very rigging he condemns. Although he's long fulminated in public about the stranglehold big-money donors have on other, less-wealthy candidates, Trump has been an active fundraiser in his own right. According to the Washington Post, through the end of September the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees and super PACs had amassed a war chest of $712 million--less than the $1.1 billion raised by and on behalf of Clinton but still a staggering sum. The reason the system is rigged, as Sanders told us time and again throughout the primaries, is that our campaign-finance laws have opened the floodgates to corruption. Fueled by growing economic inequality and a series of pro-corporate Supreme Court decisions, beginning with Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 and extending to Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 and McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014, money dominates our electoral process as never before, at both the state and national levels. The oligarchy wields undue influence--whether in the form of billionaire candidates like Trump or billionaire surrogates like Clinton. At the same time, with its 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act, accelerating already-existing suppression techniques such as voter ID, racial gerrymandering and restrictions on early voting and same-day registration. Far from telling the truth about such tactics, Trump has been a fervent advocate for them. In an August rally in North Carolina, a state with arguably the most onerous record of suppression in the aftermath of the Shelby case, Trump told supporters that without voter ID, fraud would be rampant and people would head to the polls "15 times" for Clinton. Fortunately, Trump's threat not to concede electoral defeat is empty. Although the loser in American presidential elections typically concedes as soon as the results are clear, there is no legal requirement mandating formal capitulation. Nor is there any legal basis for demanding a national recount of the vote. As we were reminded in 2000, when Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore outpolled the Republican George W. Bush, the popular vote doesn't determine the outcome of presidential elections. Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the presidency is determined by the vote of the states' representatives to the Electoral College. The candidate receiving the highest number of electoral votes becomes the president, as tallied in a joint session of Congress in January. The Electoral Count Act of 1887, as subsequently amended over the decades, gives the states 35 days (known as the "safe-harbor" period) after the presidential election to certify their respective slates of electors to Congress. Any challenges to the selection of electors or to popular vote counts must be made at the state level--and resolved within the safe-harbor time frame for each state's electors to be recognized by Congress. What threw the 2000 presidential election into doubt was the razor-thin margin of the popular vote count in Florida, which then had 25 electoral votes. Given the overall closeness of the national race between Gore and Bush, the winner of Florida would carry the Electoral College and gain the presidency. After the election, Gore filed suit in Florida to contest its certification of the election in Bush's favor. The state's supreme court ordered a recount. But before the recount could be completed, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in and halted the process, effectively giving Florida to the GOP in its notorious Bush v. Gore decision. As a result of the court's ruling, Bush won the Electoral College by a score of 271-266 (with one abstention). The only way Trump realistically could hope to mimic the litigation and delays of 2000 would be for him to challenge the results in a state in which the popular vote was uncertain and whose electoral votes would be decisive in the overall Electoral College totals. The chances of that happening, however, are slim to none--and growing dimmer with the release of each new opinion poll. Unless lighting strikes and the ground shakes, Trump's political career is drawing to an embarrassing close. Progressives should bid him a fond farewell, even as they gear up to face off against the Clinton administration and whatever new demagogue comes along to fill Trump's shoes on the right. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
24 октября 2016, 16:43

Грант: Международный конкурс для студентов Valeo Innovation Challenge

€ 100000Заявки до 31 января 2017Ежегодный конкурс Valeo Innovation Challenge приглашает команды студентов со всего мира принять участие. Конкурс посвящен автомобилям и поискам новых путей развития автомобилестроения. Заявки принимаются до 31 января 2017 года, участие бесплатное.Конкурс имеет две номинации:— Технологические инновации;— Новые способы использования автомобилей.Задача участников — придумать идею использования автомобилей в будущем (до 2030 года), учитывая, что машина должна стать более экологичным и «умным» видом транспорта.К участию допускаются студенческие команды из 2-5 человек. Язык конкурса — английский.Главный приз в каждой категории — 100000 евро. Приз за второе место — 10000 евро.Дополнительную информацию о правилах участия читайте на сайте.

24 октября 2016, 09:43

Европейские фондовые индексы слабо изменились в пятницу, выросли за неделю

Фондовые индексы Западной Европы завершили с незначительными изменениями торги в пятницу и завершили неделю ростом.

23 октября 2016, 19:01

No room to monkey around with fuel targets

IN ancient Chinese mythology, the Monkey King feared nothing except the golden loop he had to wear on his head. His head throbbed whenever his monk master began to read incantations to it. In 2016, the

Выбор редакции
21 октября 2016, 10:19

Valeo rises 4.5% after raising full-year operating margin target

This is a Real-time headline. These are breaking news, delivered the minute it happens, delivered ticker-tape style. Visit www.marketwatch.com or the quote page for more information about this breaking news.

Выбор редакции
12 октября 2016, 09:25

Ещё два автопроизводителя тестируют самоходные машины в Калифорнии

Вряд ли кто-то слышал ранее имена Wheego и Valeo, но эти компании, возможно, заработают имя на рынке машин с автопилотом. Калифорнийские власти недавно, как сообщает ресурс The Wall Street Journal, предоставили каждой из них разрешение на тестирование одного автономного автомобиля на дорогах общего пользования. Трафик на 405 автостраде близ Лос-Анджелеса (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

29 сентября 2016, 17:42

Not always in clusters

IRELAND’S Atlantic coast is sheep-rearing and pilgrim country. The drive to Tuam, a modest town of 9,550 residents, reveals mostly lush fields, low hills, stone walls and mist. Yet this unlikely spot has a hi-tech industrial side. Off Tuam’s main road a bunch of warehouses contains some 400 software engineers, researchers and artificial-intelligence experts, drawn from 35 countries. Next door is a manufacturing plant employing 650 people churning out circuit boards, cameras and sensors for driverless cars. The set-up in Tuam is operated by Valeo, a French car-parts firm with a market value of €12 billion ($13.4 billion), which brought in €500m in sales last year from producing 100m such products globally. Tuam is “our biggest R&D centre for surround cameras, with huge production capacity”, says Jacques Aschenbroich, the firm’s CEO. Tuam has also become Valeo’s global mother plant, overseeing its sensor factories in Hungary, Mexico and China. What possessed the French firm to keep such operations in a spot so far from customers such as BMW, Range Rover and Google, away from big pools of labour, and a lengthy drive from Dublin? History is one answer: in...

24 сентября 2016, 15:00

The White House Is For Sale to the Highest Bidder: Buying a President (2000)

The Citizens United ruling "opened the door" for unlimited election spending by corporations, but most of this spending has "ended up being funneled through the groups that have become known as super PACs".[135] While critics predicted that the ruling would "bring about a new era of corporate influence in politics" allowing companies and businesspeople to "buy elections" to promote their financial interests, as of 2016, in fact large corporations still play a "negligible role" in presidential election spending. Instead large expenditures, usually through "Super PACS," have come from "a small group of billionaires", based largely on ideology. This has shifted power "away from the political parties and toward the ... donors themselves. In part, this explains the large number and variety of candidates fielded by the Republicans in 2016."[135] The ability of individuals to spend unlimited sums was first affirmed by the Supreme Court, however, not in Citizens United, but in Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has often been credited for the creation of "super PACs", political action committees which make no financial contributions to candidates or parties, and so can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions. Certainly, the holding in Citizens United helped affirm the legal basis for super PACs by deciding that, for purposes of establishing a "compelling government interest" of corruption sufficient to justify government limitations on political speech, "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption".[136] However, it took another decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, to actually authorize the creation of super PACs. While Citizens United held that corporations and unions could make independent expenditures, a separate provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act, at least as long interpreted by the Federal Election Commission, held that individuals could not contribute to a common fund without it becoming a PAC. PACs, in turn, were not allowed to accept corporate or union contributions of any size or to accept individual contributions in excess of $5,000. In Speechnow.org, the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, held 9–0 that in light of Citizens United, such restrictions on the sources and size of contributions could not apply to an organization that made only independent expenditures in support of or opposition to a candidate, but not contributions to a candidate's campaign. Citizens United and SpeechNOW left their imprint on the 2012 United States presidential election, in which single individuals contributed large sums to "super PACs" supporting particular candidates. Sheldon Adelson, the gambling entrepreneur, gave approximately fifteen million dollars to support Newt Gingrich. Foster Friess, a Wyoming financier, donated almost two million dollars to Rick Santorum’s super PAC. Karl Rove organized super PACs that spent over $300 million in support of Republicans during the 2012 elections.[137] In addition to indirectly providing support for the creation of super PACs, Citizens United allowed incorporated 501(c)(4) public advocacy groups (such as the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club, and the group Citizens United itself) and trade associations to make expenditures in political races. Such groups may not, under the tax code, have a primary purpose of engaging in electoral advocacy. These organizations must disclose their expenditures, but unlike super PACs they do not have to include the names of their donors in their FEC filings. A number of partisan organizations such as Karl Rove's influential conservative Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies and the liberal 21st Century Colorado have since registered as tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups (defined as groups promoting "social welfare") and engaged in substantial political spending.[138][139] This has led to claims[140][141][142] of large secret donations, and questions about whether such groups should be required to disclose their donors. Historically, such non-profits have not been required to disclose their donors or names of members. See National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

23 сентября 2016, 20:14

Larry Lessig takes his plan to Congress

Lawrence Lessig pushed public funding and voucher programs at a discussion on campaign finance this week. (AP Photo/Jim Cole) By: Ashley Balcerzak Lawrence Lessig's plea to members of Congress wasn't exactly diplomatic: "End the humiliation that is your life, the embarrassment that is our representative democracy." The Harvard law professor was referring to the outsize role fundraising plays in lawmakers' schedules, and surveys showing that the most people believe the current system keeps them from being heard. And Lessig thinks politicians aren't talking about it enough. "As a Democrat who desperately wants to see Hillary Clinton elected, what I fear is that there's not enough of a recognition in this campaign about that frustration," Lessig said to a packed bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Caucus discussion Thursday on Capitol Hill.   Lessig himself tried and failed to reach the position Clinton secured as Democratic nominee for president. He ran his short-lived campaign on a campaign finance overhaul plan, promising to step down as soon as the package passed. Two months later, Lessig dropped out; his poll numbers never rose high enough for him to be included on the Democratic debate stage.  Two years earlier, he'd formed a super PAC called Mayday PAC that spent $7.6 million to support candidates that backed changing how campaigns are funded. It didn't work out well: Only one of the candidates won -- a House member who had a safe seat to begin with. Lessig continues to push his "plan to save democracy." He proposed a voucher system, where taxpayers would get a $50 tax refund and use it to donate to congressional candidates who agreed to opt in to the program: If they accepted the vouchers, the only other funds they could take would be individual contributions of $100 or less. Lessig also pushes for matching public funds for campaigns that forgo PAC money. "It would change the business model of fundraising," Lessig said. Where Lessig sees transformative possibilities, some conservative First Amendment advocates aren't so enthused. Imposing limits and restrictions on campaign financing denies people opportunities to exercise their democratic rights, said Joel Gora, Brooklyn Law School professor who worked on the Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court case that struck down major campaign finance restrictions. "I think vouchers are a great idea, but without limiting the resources or amount of money of any group," Gora said. "If you want to have subsidies, we deregulation types like to say, 'Have floors without ceilings.'" Others worry about how far the government control would extend. "When the government is handing out a lot of money to campaigns, it will have an interest that the money isn't misused and that comes with a lot of risk over the long run," said David Keating, president of the conservative Center for Competitive Politics, a nonprofit that advocates for less donor disclosure and higher -- or no -- limits. "They might want to start controlling what the candidates are allowed to say, like maybe they'll say there are too many negative ads." One of the attendees, Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Penn.), wanted to hear Lessig's thoughts on his reform plan before he had to rush off to call donors (yes, he went there). Boyle said 85 percent of his spending went to TV advertising, so he wanted a bill to give free TV time for candidates that qualify. "The challenge that you face is the Supreme Court has made it incredibly difficult to regulate the demand side," Lessig said. "I'm not sure there is a constitutional power to do much of that." While the government can regulate the broadcast industry's use of airwaves in the public interest, it does not have that same authority over cable and the internet. "And let's face it, broadcast ads are going the way of the telegraph," Keating said. "More people are consuming their news and videos online, so if you mandated free broadcast time it will be totally irrelevant in the not-too-distant future." The caucus cofounder, Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) plugged the constitutional amendment he's proposed to eliminate PACs and super PACs, leaving individuals and public financing as the only ways to support or oppose someone running for public office. McNerney's caucus co-chair, however, didn't seem optimistic about the chances of the reform proposals. "We have bitched and complained about this system for so long...but unless there's a scandal, nothing will happen," said Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. (R-N.C.). Lessig said the public couldn't wait for another Watergate to push for changes. "There's no crime here in what they're doing, and if what you need is crime to get change, I'm afraid you won't get change," Lessig said. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.