National Handloom Day 2026: From Alia Bhatt to Samantha Ruth Prabhu; Actresses who celebrated India's textile heritage as brides

The Royals enter the Doctor Who universe: King Charles and Queen Camilla beam into Commonwealth Games in TARDIS

Unitree Robotics targets $9 billion valuation in landmark IPO backed by DeepSeek and Tencent

India names 27 sites in Arunachal Pradesh

Bharat Bhhagya Viddhaata OTT: When will Kangana Ranaut's film stream online?

How many soldiers operate one S-400 battery?

Shakib Al Hasan ready to return to Bangladesh—under one condition

‘Fake news’: MEA rejects report claiming India sought defence pact with Israel after Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey deal

Rockstar to unveil GTA 6 extended look ahead of November launch

Russia forms Ukrainian Volunteer Spetsnaz Brigade to fight Ukraine

Drug-resistant fungus that hides in hair and enters bloodstream reported in 23 US states

Technology transfer deal boosts India's defence manufacturing ambitions

Border row erupts in Europe after Ceuta crossings, Spain imposes border controls on Italy

Morale plummets on USS Abraham Lincoln: Are US sailors reaching a breaking point? | GRAVITAS

'Security can't be bought with Pakistan, Turkey deal': Iran tells Saudi Arabia

Baba Vanga's 2026 prophecy: 2 predictions 'already came true', 3 terrifying ones remain. Details inside

Colombia’s new president Abelardo de la Espriella vows to ‘defeat narco-terrorists’, signals hardline shift

New Friday OTT releases (August 7, 2026): Operation Safed Sagar, Vadhandhi, Main Vaapis Aaunga- 6 movies and TV shows on Netflix, Prime Video and more

Squadron Leader Bhawana Kanth scripts history as Indian Air Force gets its first woman ‘Top Gun’ pilot

RSS says Gen Z protests reflect genuine distress

Trump says Iranian school bombing photos could be AI-generated - 'I don’t think...'

IAF officer held for sharing sensitive information in 'honey trap' case, booked under Official Secrets Act

Stray Kids under scrutiny? Fans react to Grammy submission silence after BTS boycott

Why the Su-30MKI doesn't need external fuel tanks to fly vast distances

Jugal Hansraj reunites with Shekhar Kapur after 40 years for Masoom: The Next Generation

New speed limits, automatic challans: Big traffic change coming to Delhi-Meerut Expressway. All you need to know

India officially names 27 places in Arunachal to counter China's renaming claims

Trump calls White House ballroom ruling a 'national disgrace' as court says Congress approval needed

US sanctions Iran’s crypto network after Strait of Hormuz attacks, offers $15m bounty for intel on IRGC finance

Why the Su-30MKI is one of the heaviest fighters ever built

Uttarakhand young innovator builds India's own flying vehicle, conducts first test flight: WATCH

Chilling video shows students take cover as teen opens fire at Thai school

Reese Witherspoon's father hospitalised after poolside incident in Nashville: Report

Indian stock market shares slid on Monday as daily covid-19 surpassed 100,000 for the first time, and some states imposed fresh restrictions on outdoor movement, sparking concerns about the pace of the country’s economic recovery.

Around 11.20 a.m., Sensex was trading at 48,707.16, lower by 1,322.97 points or 2.64 per cent from its previous close.

The Nifty50 on the National Stock Exchange was trading at 14,501.90, lower by 365.45 from its previous close.

The losers on the Sensex were IndusInd Bank, Bajaj Finance and Bajaj Finserv, while the only gainers were Infosys HCL Technologies and TCS.

(With inputs from agencies)

Indian stock market shares slid on Monday as daily covid-19 surpassed 100,000 for the first time, and some states imposed fresh restrictions on outdoor movement, sparking concerns about the pace of the country’s economic recovery.

Indian stock market shares slid on Monday as daily covid-19 surpassed 100,000 for the first time, and some states imposed fresh restrictions on outdoor movement, sparking concerns about the pace of the country’s economic recovery. Around 11.20 a.m., Sensex was trading at 48,707.16, lower by 1,322.97 points or 2.64 per cent from its previous close. The Nifty50 on the National Stock Exchange was trading at 14,501.90, lower by 365.45 from its previous close. The losers on the Sensex were IndusInd Bank, Bajaj Finance and Bajaj Finserv, while the only gainers were Infosys HCL Technologies and TCS. (With inputs from agencies)

Sensex tanks 1,300 points; banking, auto stocks plunge 

The French government has reached the outline of a deal with the European Commission on a state-backed refinancing package to help strengthen Air France-KLM’s balance sheet.

World Business Watch:  Reports say France, Brussels agree on Air France-KLM refinancing

The stock market indices, Sensex and Nifty ended sharply lower on Monday dragged by heavy selling was witnessed in banks, auto, FMCG and financial sectors.&nbsp;

Broader markets, smallcap and midcap indices closed over 1 per cent lower each. Buying was witnessed in Nifty IT and Nifty Metal indices.&nbsp;

Sensex dropped 1,449 points in the intra-day deals to hit a low of 48,581 amid heavy selling in banking, financial services, and realty counters. However, a sharp rally in the IT ahead of the March quarter results gave investors some solace and the index ended 870.5 points, or 1.74 per cent, down at 49,159 levels.

On the NSE, the Nifty50 index recovered 179 points from the day's low level of 14,459, and settled at 14,638 levels, down 229 points or 1.5 per cent.

Global markets

Stock prices rose to a 1 1/2-month high on Monday after data showed a surge in US employment while US bonds came under pressure on worries the Federal Reserve may bump up interest rates sooner than it has indicated.

In Asia, Japan's Nikkei rose 0.8 per cent while MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan slipped slightly, with China closed for Tomb-Sweeping day and Australia on Easter Monday.

(With inputs from Reuters)

The stock market indices, Sensex and Nifty ended sharply lower on Monday dragged by heavy selling was witnessed in banks, auto, FMCG and financial sectors. Broader markets, smallcap and midcap indices closed over 1 per cent lower each.

The stock market indices, Sensex and Nifty ended sharply lower on Monday dragged by heavy selling was witnessed in banks, auto, FMCG and financial sectors. Broader markets, smallcap and midcap indices closed over 1 per cent lower each. Buying was witnessed in Nifty IT and Nifty Metal indices. Sensex dropped 1,449 points in the intra-day deals to hit a low of 48,581 amid heavy selling in banking, financial services, and realty counters. However, a sharp rally in the IT ahead of the March quarter results gave investors some solace and the index ended 870.5 points, or 1.74 per cent, down at 49,159 levels. On the NSE, the Nifty50 index recovered 179 points from the day's low level of 14,459, and settled at 14,638 levels, down 229 points or 1.5 per cent. Global markets Stock prices rose to a 1 1/2-month high on Monday after data showed a surge in US employment while US bonds came under pressure on worries the Federal Reserve may bump up interest rates sooner than it has indicated. In Asia, Japan's Nikkei rose 0.8 per cent while MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan slipped slightly, with China closed for Tomb-Sweeping day and Australia on Easter Monday. (With inputs from Reuters)

Sensex closes 870 points lower, Nifty at 14,637

Professional social network LinkedIn will give nearly all of its 15,900 full-time workers next week off in order to help them avoid burnout.

According to AFP news agency, the Microsoft-owned firm said that the "RestUp!" week starting Monday is meant to give employees time for their own well-being.

"There is something magical about the entire company taking a break at the same time," LinkedIn said. "And the best part? Not coming back to an avalanche of unanswered internal emails."

During the week, LinkedIn will provide employees who may feel isolated the option of taking part in daily activities such as volunteering for worthy causes through "random acts of kindness."

"A core team of employees will continue to work for the week, but they will be able to schedule time off later," LinkedIn said.

LinkedIn, whose employees are currently working from home, does not expect them to begin returning to its offices until September, and plans to make it standard practice to let them work from home as much as half of the time.

Major technology companies were among the first in the US to adopt working from home last year to help slow the spread of the coronavirus, and most have yet to fully reopen their offices.

Professional social network LinkedIn will give nearly all of its 15,900 full-time workers next week off in order to help them avoid burnout. According to AFP news agency, the Microsoft-owned firm said that the "RestUp!

Professional social network LinkedIn will give nearly all of its 15,900 full-time workers next week off in order to help them avoid burnout. According to AFP news agency, the Microsoft-owned firm said that the "RestUp!" week starting Monday is meant to give employees time for their own well-being. "There is something magical about the entire company taking a break at the same time," LinkedIn said. "And the best part? Not coming back to an avalanche of unanswered internal emails." During the week, LinkedIn will provide employees who may feel isolated the option of taking part in daily activities such as volunteering for worthy causes through "random acts of kindness." "A core team of employees will continue to work for the week, but they will be able to schedule time off later," LinkedIn said. LinkedIn, whose employees are currently working from home, does not expect them to begin returning to its offices until September, and plans to make it standard practice to let them work from home as much as half of the time. Major technology companies were among the first in the US to adopt working from home last year to help slow the spread of the coronavirus, and most have yet to fully reopen their offices.

LinkedIn to give staff week off for well-being

Semiconductors or computer chips are everywhere. From computers to smartphones, tablets, smartwatches and even cars. Chips run everything in the 21st century. But there is a serious shortage right now.

The problem started with the pandemic with workers staying home. The demand for computing devices went through the roof. This triggered an unprecedented global shortage. The demand continues to increase.

Automakers increasingly depend on chips for everything. From improving fuel economy through engine management to driver assistance.

But, since there is now a global shortage. Car-makers had to cut production.

General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen, Subaru, Toyota, Nissan... they are all scaling back. Chips are the heart of smartphones too. They handle everything.

Reports say, Qualcomm, a major smartphone chain supplier is now struggling to keep up demand. One of its biggest customers, Samsung is warning of supply issues already.

Apple's supplier Foxconn expects a 10 per cent decline in exports. The iPhone maker may face similar challenges as its competitors.

Refrigerators and microwave ovens could be the next victims. That's the prediction of the president of Whirlpool corp, Jason Ai.

Whirlpool corp is one of the largest appliance makers in the world. The company said its falling behind on its exports to America and Europe.

That's because its chip deliveries have dropped by about 10 per cent.

These chips power more than half of Whirlpool's products from microwaves to refrigerators and washing machines.

By now, you know how critical chips are to our world. They run most of our appliances. And manufacturers will only need more of them in the future.

The car industry alone could spend up to 45 per cent of its cost on semiconductors by 2030. But with only a few suppliers dominating the global market, companies are struggling with serious supply shortages.

Semiconductors or computer chips are everywhere. From computers to smartphones, tablets, smartwatches and even cars. Chips run everything in the 21st century. But there is a serious shortage right now.

Semiconductors or computer chips are everywhere. From computers to smartphones, tablets, smartwatches and even cars. Chips run everything in the 21st century. But there is a serious shortage right now. The problem started with the pandemic with workers staying home. The demand for computing devices went through the roof. This triggered an unprecedented global shortage. The demand continues to increase. Automakers increasingly depend on chips for everything. From improving fuel economy through engine management to driver assistance. But, since there is now a global shortage. Car-makers had to cut production. General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen, Subaru, Toyota, Nissan... they are all scaling back. Chips are the heart of smartphones too. They handle everything. Reports say, Qualcomm, a major smartphone chain supplier is now struggling to keep up demand. One of its biggest customers, Samsung is warning of supply issues already. Apple's supplier Foxconn expects a 10 per cent decline in exports. The iPhone maker may face similar challenges as its competitors. Refrigerators and microwave ovens could be the next victims. That's the prediction of the president of Whirlpool corp, Jason Ai. Whirlpool corp is one of the largest appliance makers in the world. The company said its falling behind on its exports to America and Europe. That's because its chip deliveries have dropped by about 10 per cent. These chips power more than half of Whirlpool's products from microwaves to refrigerators and washing machines. By now, you know how critical chips are to our world. They run most of our appliances. And manufacturers will only need more of them in the future. The car industry alone could spend up to 45 per cent of its cost on semiconductors by 2030. But with only a few suppliers dominating the global market, companies are struggling with serious supply shortages.

Companies struggle as supply of electronic chips goes down

Automobile companies posted exponential growth in their year-on-year wholesale numbers in March mainly because of the low base effect due to COVID-related disruptions last year.

World Business Watch: Base-effect drives March auto sales to new highs in India

A measure of US manufacturing activity soared to its highest level in more than 37 years in March, driven by strong growth in new orders, the clearest sign yet that a much anticipated economic boom was probably underway.

World Business Watch: US manufacturing sector index races to 37-year high in March

General Motors reported a modest rise in car sales in North America for the first quarter, but its operations continue to be hampered by a shortage of computer chips.

GM said on Thursday that it sold 642,250 cars and light trucks in the first three months of the year, up just 4% even though sales a year ago slowed sharply as the coronavirus pandemic took hold.

By contrast, Toyota Motor Corp. showed a strong rebound in sales compared with a year ago. The Japanese company reported that sales in North America jumped 22% in the first three months of 2021, to 603,066 cars and light trucks. Its March sales were a record high for that month.

Toyota’s big jump helped it outsell Ford Motor Co., which has also been hit by the semiconductor shortage. Ford’s sales in the first quarter were up just 1%, to 521,334. Stellantis — the company formed by the merger of Fiat Chrysler and France’s Peugeot SA — reported its U.S. sales increased 5% in the first quarter.

Ford and GM both enjoyed substantial increases in sales to individual customers at dealerships while reporting declines in sales to fleet operators like rental car companies and governments.

GM and Ford have had to halt or slow production at a handful of plants. GM has resorted to making some vehicles without parts containing computer chips with the intention of installing those components before sale when supply improves.

In a statement, GM said it hoped its strategy for building cars without some components would help it “quickly meet strong expected customer demand during the year.”

That approach to building cars “underscores the dire nature” of the semiconductor shortage, an analyst at CFRA Research, Garrett Nelson, said in a report. “One of the key questions is how much better the U.S. auto sales recovery can get from here.”

The chip shortage is reflected in GM’s unusually low inventory of 334,628 vehicles. That is about 76,000 less than at the end of the fourth quarter and is half the number of vehicles its dealers held in stock a year ago. Ford’s inventory was 56,100 lower than at the end of 2020.

GM’s sluggish sales were confined to its Chevrolet brand, whose sales fell 2% in the first quarter. That included a 13% decline in sales of its full-size Silverado pickup truck, a critical profit-maker for the company. The Buick, Cadillac and GMC brands reported strong sales in the quarter.

Toyota also reported a drop in sales of its full-size pickup, the Tundra. But the decline was more than offset by big increases in sales of its RAV4, Highlander and 4Runner sport-utility vehicles and cars from its Lexus luxury brand.

Also on Thursday, Honda Motor reported its first-quarter sale

General Motors reported a modest rise in car sales in North America for the first quarter, but its operations continue to be hampered by a shortage of computer chips.

General Motors reported a modest rise in car sales in North America for the first quarter, but its operations continue to be hampered by a shortage of computer chips. GM said on Thursday that it sold 642,250 cars and light trucks in the first three months of the year, up just 4% even though sales a year ago slowed sharply as the coronavirus pandemic took hold. By contrast, Toyota Motor Corp. showed a strong rebound in sales compared with a year ago. The Japanese company reported that sales in North America jumped 22% in the first three months of 2021, to 603,066 cars and light trucks. Its March sales were a record high for that month. Toyota’s big jump helped it outsell Ford Motor Co., which has also been hit by the semiconductor shortage. Ford’s sales in the first quarter were up just 1%, to 521,334. Stellantis — the company formed by the merger of Fiat Chrysler and France’s Peugeot SA — reported its U.S. sales increased 5% in the first quarter. Ford and GM both enjoyed substantial increases in sales to individual customers at dealerships while reporting declines in sales to fleet operators like rental car companies and governments. GM and Ford have had to halt or slow production at a handful of plants. GM has resorted to making some vehicles without parts containing computer chips with the intention of installing those components before sale when supply improves. In a statement, GM said it hoped its strategy for building cars without some components would help it “quickly meet strong expected customer demand during the year.” That approach to building cars “underscores the dire nature” of the semiconductor shortage, an analyst at CFRA Research, Garrett Nelson, said in a report. “One of the key questions is how much better the U.S. auto sales recovery can get from here.” The chip shortage is reflected in GM’s unusually low inventory of 334,628 vehicles. That is about 76,000 less than at the end of the fourth quarter and is half the number of vehicles its dealers held in stock a year ago. Ford’s inventory was 56,100 lower than at the end of 2020. GM’s sluggish sales were confined to its Chevrolet brand, whose sales fell 2% in the first quarter. That included a 13% decline in sales of its full-size Silverado pickup truck, a critical profit-maker for the company. The Buick, Cadillac and GMC brands reported strong sales in the quarter. Toyota also reported a drop in sales of its full-size pickup, the Tundra. But the decline was more than offset by big increases in sales of its RAV4, Highlander and 4Runner sport-utility vehicles and cars from its Lexus luxury brand. Also on Thursday, Honda Motor reported its first-quarter sale

Toyota sales surge, but GM and Ford’s rebounds are weaker

OPEC and its allies, including Russia, announced Thursday they would gradually increase oil production over the next three months.

In agreeing to modest output increases, Saudi Arabia appears to have yielded to pressure from Russia and other producers who are eager to raise output. They want to take advantage of what they see as a likely growing global thirst for oil as economies slowly expand after pandemic lockdowns.

The group, known as OPEC Plus, has been withholding 8 million barrels a day from the market.

On this occasion, the Saudis “decided to go with the consensus of the members,” said Helima Croft, a commodity strategist at RBC Capital Markets, an investment bank.

Under the agreement, OPEC Plus will increase production by 350,000 barrels a day in both May and June and by 441,000 barrels a day in July. Over the same period, Saudi Arabia will gradually unwind additional cuts of 1 million barrels a day that it has been making voluntarily.

Prince Abdulaziz said during a news conference after the meeting that OPEC Plus wanted to test out increased production but would still be able to change plans if demand failed to materialize.

“We can freeze; we can increase; we can decrease,” he said.

For now, the oil market has accepted the prospect of increases that would amount to less than 1% of global consumption per month. Larry Goldstein, an oil analyst at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, said that the approach to relaxing cuts was “very modest and conservative” and would tend to bolster prices over the coming months.

In addition, Croft said, OPEC’s willingness to increase output is seen as a vote of confidence in the global economic recovery.

OPEC and its allies, including Russia, announced Thursday they would gradually increase oil production over the next three months. In agreeing to modest output increases, Saudi Arabia appears to have yielded to pressure from Russia and other producers who are eager to raise output.

OPEC and its allies, including Russia, announced Thursday they would gradually increase oil production over the next three months. In agreeing to modest output increases, Saudi Arabia appears to have yielded to pressure from Russia and other producers who are eager to raise output. They want to take advantage of what they see as a likely growing global thirst for oil as economies slowly expand after pandemic lockdowns. The group, known as OPEC Plus, has been withholding 8 million barrels a day from the market. On this occasion, the Saudis “decided to go with the consensus of the members,” said Helima Croft, a commodity strategist at RBC Capital Markets, an investment bank. Under the agreement, OPEC Plus will increase production by 350,000 barrels a day in both May and June and by 441,000 barrels a day in July. Over the same period, Saudi Arabia will gradually unwind additional cuts of 1 million barrels a day that it has been making voluntarily. Prince Abdulaziz said during a news conference after the meeting that OPEC Plus wanted to test out increased production but would still be able to change plans if demand failed to materialize. “We can freeze; we can increase; we can decrease,” he said. For now, the oil market has accepted the prospect of increases that would amount to less than 1% of global consumption per month. Larry Goldstein, an oil analyst at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, said that the approach to relaxing cuts was “very modest and conservative” and would tend to bolster prices over the coming months. In addition, Croft said, OPEC’s willingness to increase output is seen as a vote of confidence in the global economic recovery.

OPEC and its allies agree to gradual increases in oil production

Joint Chief Executive of online gambling company Bet365, Denise Coates was paid a total of £421 million last year, newly-released annual accounts for the gambling firm reveal.

The 53-year-old founder and chief executive officer of Bet365 Group Ltd. pocketed 468.9 million pounds ($648 million) in pay and dividends, almost 50% more than a year earlier, according to a filing from the online bookmaker.

Coates' mega pay package means she took home 3,126 times more than the UK Prime Minister, who earns around £150,000.

She founded the online gambling company in the early 2000s in Stoke-on-Trent after spotting the potential of internet betting to revolutionise the industry.

Coates, already Britain's highest-paid boss, saw her package increase from £277m the year before.

The privately held Bet365 is jointly owned by Denise Coates and members of her family, including Brother John, the joint CEO, and father Peter, who chairs the firm.

Bet365 also owns soccer club Stoke City, which made a loss of 8.7 million pounds following its relegation to the second-tier Championship in the 2017-18 season.

(With inputs from agencies)

Joint Chief Executive of online gambling company Bet365, Denise Coates was paid a total of £421 million last year, newly-released annual accounts for the gambling firm reveal.

Joint Chief Executive of online gambling company Bet365, Denise Coates was paid a total of £421 million last year, newly-released annual accounts for the gambling firm reveal. The 53-year-old founder and chief executive officer of Bet365 Group Ltd. pocketed 468.9 million pounds ($648 million) in pay and dividends, almost 50% more than a year earlier, according to a filing from the online bookmaker. Coates' mega pay package means she took home 3,126 times more than the UK Prime Minister, who earns around £150,000. She founded the online gambling company in the early 2000s in Stoke-on-Trent after spotting the potential of internet betting to revolutionise the industry. Coates, already Britain's highest-paid boss, saw her package increase from £277m the year before. The privately held Bet365 is jointly owned by Denise Coates and members of her family, including Brother John, the joint CEO, and father Peter, who chairs the firm. Bet365 also owns soccer club Stoke City, which made a loss of 8.7 million pounds following its relegation to the second-tier Championship in the 2017-18 season. (With inputs from agencies)

UK's richest woman Denise Coates takes home record £469 million pay packet

Japanese big manufacturers’ sentiment improved to pre-pandemic levels in the first quarter as companies planned to increase capital expenditure this year.

World Business Watch: Japan business sentiments improves to pre-pandemic levels

Crude prices rose on Thursday, recouping some of the previous session's losses on expectations that a meeting of OPEC and its allies later on Thursday (April 01) would yield output constraint in the face of resurgent COVID-19 infections in some regions.

World Business Watch: Oil gains ahead of OPEC+ meet on output policy

The banking industry is not just limited to parking deposits and availing loans, it has expanded its scope in a much bigger way. AU Small Finance Bank's Group Head, Rishi Dhariwal tells you more on this.

Rishi Dhariwal: Modern banks cover entire gamut of financial services

Indian stock market indices, Sensex and Nifty ended with strong gains Thursday led by a rally in metals, banks and auto stocks amid positive global cues.&nbsp;

Broader markets outperformed the benchmarks as Nifty Midcap100 jumped 1.79 percent, while Nifty Smallcap100 ended 2.09 percent higher.

Among the frontline indices, the benchmark S&amp;P BSE Sensex reclaimed the 50,000-mark on a closing basis and closed at 50,030, after advancing 521 points or 1.05 per cent.&nbsp;

Earlier in the day, the index had briefly slipped in the red to touch a low of 49,478.5. On the NSE, the Nifty50 index closed at 14,867 levels, up 177 points or 1.2 per cent.

Global markets

Stocks crept higher on Thursday following their weakest quarter in a year, while higher Treasury yields supported the dollar.&nbsp;

MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan rose 0.6 per cent, while Japan's Nikkei rose 1.3 per cent as a survey showed big manufacturers' mood bouncing back to pre-pandemic levels.

In Europe, the pan-European STOXX 600 index rose 0.5 per cent, the German DAX climbed 0.6 per cent to hit a record high, while the UK's FTSE 100 also gained 0.6 per cent.

Nasdaq Futures, meanwhile, were last up 0.9 per cent and S&amp;P 500 futures added 0.4 per cent.

(With inputs from Reuters)

Indian stock market indices, Sensex and Nifty ended with strong gains Thursday led by a rally in metals, banks and auto stocks amid positive global cues. Broader markets outperformed the benchmarks as Nifty Midcap100 jumped 1.

Indian stock market indices, Sensex and Nifty ended with strong gains Thursday led by a rally in metals, banks and auto stocks amid positive global cues. Broader markets outperformed the benchmarks as Nifty Midcap100 jumped 1.79 percent, while Nifty Smallcap100 ended 2.09 percent higher. Among the frontline indices, the benchmark S&P BSE Sensex reclaimed the 50,000-mark on a closing basis and closed at 50,030, after advancing 521 points or 1.05 per cent. Earlier in the day, the index had briefly slipped in the red to touch a low of 49,478.5. On the NSE, the Nifty50 index closed at 14,867 levels, up 177 points or 1.2 per cent. Global markets Stocks crept higher on Thursday following their weakest quarter in a year, while higher Treasury yields supported the dollar. MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan rose 0.6 per cent, while Japan's Nikkei rose 1.3 per cent as a survey showed big manufacturers' mood bouncing back to pre-pandemic levels. In Europe, the pan-European STOXX 600 index rose 0.5 per cent, the German DAX climbed 0.6 per cent to hit a record high, while the UK's FTSE 100 also gained 0.6 per cent. Nasdaq Futures, meanwhile, were last up 0.9 per cent and S&P 500 futures added 0.4 per cent. (With inputs from Reuters)

Sensex jumps 521 points, reclaims 50,000; Nifty above 14,850

Oil prices rose on Thursday on optimism over a U.S. government spending plan and hopes that OPEC and its allies will keep production curbs in place when they meet on Thursday.

Brent crude was up by 91 cents, or 1.5%, at $63.65 a barrel by 0849 GMT. U.S. oil was up 99 cents, or 1.7%, at $60.15 a barrel.

Ministers from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and allies including Russia, a group called OPEC+, meet on Thursday to reassess output policy. 
OPEC+ will debate options from May and beyond, including a rollover of existing cuts and a gradual increase of production, three OPEC+ sources said.

OPEC+ is currently curbing output by just over 7 million barrels per day (bpd) to support prices and reduce oversupply. Saudi Arabia has added to those cuts with a further 1 million bpd.

"Given the recent wobble in prices, along with demand concerns re-emerging once again, there is a growing consensus that the OPEC+ will likely roll over current cuts for an additional month," ING analyst Warren Patterson said.

OPEC+ has trimmed its oil demand growth forecast for this year by 300,000 bpd over renewed lockdowns, making it more likely the group will agree to sustain its curbs.

France entered its third national lockdown and schools closed for three weeks to push back a third wave of COVID-19 infections that threatens to overwhelm hospitals. Several other European countries have also increased restrictions.

Oil also found some support in U.S. economic strength after President Joe Biden outlined a $2.3 trillion spending plan to invest in traditional projects such as roads and bridges alongside tackling climate change.

U.S. crude stocks also fell unexpectedly last week, helping to support oil prices, Energy Information Administration data showed.

"The inventory data ... showed that the situation is continuing to normalise on the U.S. oil market," Commerzbank analyst Eugen Weinberg said.

Other factors, including the rise of gasoline demand in the United States, also supported prices, Weinberg said.

Oil prices rose on Thursday on optimism over a U.S. government spending plan and hopes that OPEC and its allies will keep production curbs in place when they meet on Thursday.

Oil prices rose on Thursday on optimism over a U.S. government spending plan and hopes that OPEC and its allies will keep production curbs in place when they meet on Thursday. Brent crude was up by 91 cents, or 1.5%, at $63.65 a barrel by 0849 GMT. U.S. oil was up 99 cents, or 1.7%, at $60.15 a barrel. Ministers from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and allies including Russia, a group called OPEC+, meet on Thursday to reassess output policy. OPEC+ will debate options from May and beyond, including a rollover of existing cuts and a gradual increase of production, three OPEC+ sources said. OPEC+ is currently curbing output by just over 7 million barrels per day (bpd) to support prices and reduce oversupply. Saudi Arabia has added to those cuts with a further 1 million bpd. "Given the recent wobble in prices, along with demand concerns re-emerging once again, there is a growing consensus that the OPEC+ will likely roll over current cuts for an additional month," ING analyst Warren Patterson said. OPEC+ has trimmed its oil demand growth forecast for this year by 300,000 bpd over renewed lockdowns, making it more likely the group will agree to sustain its curbs. France entered its third national lockdown and schools closed for three weeks to push back a third wave of COVID-19 infections that threatens to overwhelm hospitals. Several other European countries have also increased restrictions. Oil also found some support in U.S. economic strength after President Joe Biden outlined a $2.3 trillion spending plan to invest in traditional projects such as roads and bridges alongside tackling climate change. U.S. crude stocks also fell unexpectedly last week, helping to support oil prices, Energy Information Administration data showed. "The inventory data ... showed that the situation is continuing to normalise on the U.S. oil market," Commerzbank analyst Eugen Weinberg said. Other factors, including the rise of gasoline demand in the United States, also supported prices, Weinberg said.

Oil up as OPEC+ meets to decide on production policy

SAN FRANCISCO — In 2009, Shamir Karkal and several colleagues struggled to raise money for a banking startup, Simple. Most of the 70 venture capital firms they met over the course of a year did not see the point of the idea, he said. The few that did thought it would fail.

By last year, things had changed. When Karkal set out to raise funding for his new financial technology startup, Sila, which makes regulatory compliance software, he garnered $5 million in a few months with a fraction of the pitches. He said he was frustrated it did not happen even faster.

“I know folks in the space who raised rounds in less than one week,” he said.

Sila is one of thousands of financial technology startups riding an investor frenzy driven by a growing realization that Big Finance is ripe for a tech makeover. When the pandemic forced businesses to speed up their usage of digital tools, including e-commerce and online banking, the demand for what is known as fintech exploded.

Now startups with names like Blend, Brex and Dave that provide decidedly unglamorous banking, lending and payment processing offerings are hot tickets. That was punctuated this month when Stripe, a payments company, raised $600 million in a financing that valued it at $95 billion, the highest ever for a private startup in the United States.

Financial technology companies are also making a splash on the stock market. On March 23, Robinhood, a stock trading app popular with young adults, filed for an initial public offering. And Coinbase, a cryptocurrency startup, is scheduled to go public in the next few weeks in what could be a $100 billion listing.

Even tiny financial startups that have not formally introduced their products — such as Zeller, which will offer banking services to businesses; and Sivo, which is building lending software — have raised millions of dollars and been valued at nine-digit sums.

In total, venture capital investors poured $44.4 billion into financial technology startups last year, up from $1.1 billion in 2009, according to PitchBook, which tracks private financings.

Many investors are making bold predictions that these startups will upend big banks, established credit card providers — and in some cases, the entire financial system.

“The banks are extremely vulnerable” because they have not kept up with what customers expect, said Mark Goldberg, an investor at the venture capital firm Index Ventures. He predicted $1 trillion of market value could transfer from old guard financial institutions to tech companies over the next two decades.

“It’s what Amazon did to offline retail,” he said. “It’s just playing out 10 years later in fintech right now.”

The financial technology startups that are riding the boom run the gamut. They provide services including checking accounts, mortgages, insurance, investing, payment processing and cryptocurrencies.

Many are capitalizing on people’s long-simmering distrust of the big banks, especially after the 2008 financial crisis. Often, the startups offer slick and easy-to-use apps, no physical branches and low or no fees. And they are building on people’s growing familiarity over the past decade with tech tools and digital payments, a shift that has accelerated in the pandemic.

Just as cheap cloud computing and smartphones once enabled a wave of new app startups, the financial technology sector has developed its own set of building blocks, allowing new companies to spring up faster.

One of the building-block companies is Stripe. Founded in 2010, Stripe started out by offering to process payments for small businesses and startups. By 2018, it was worth $20 billion and had begun investing in other startups.

Stripe now processes hundreds of billions of dollars in payments a year, has expanded to larger customers including Salesforce and Booking.com, and has made more than 30 investments in other fintech startups.

“We are in a hypergrowth industry and within that, the company itself is experiencing hypergrowth,” Dhivya Suryadevara, Stripe’s chief financial officer, said in an interview.

Domm Holland, chief executive of Fast, an e-commerce checkout software startup, said Stripe sped up his company’s progress. Customers who use Stripe to accept online payments can then use Fast’s software for their checkout process.

“If Stripe didn’t exist today, we would first have to build Stripe,” Holland said. “That’s a lot of work. They’ve already done that.”

Last year, as Fast’s business grew in the pandemic, investors began messaging Holland daily asking to invest in the company. “I have people LinkedIn messaging and emailing, just offering, ‘Take $5 million at any valuation you like,’” he said. “It is a bizarre world to live in.”

He ended up raising $102 million for Fast in January. Stripe was one of the main investors in the financing.

Other companies that play similar “building block” roles in the financial technology boom include Affirm, which offers lending and went public this year; Shopify, which enables e-commerce transactions; and Plaid, which helps apps connect with bank accounts.

“The infrastructure has gone to a whole other level,” said CJ MacDonald, founder of Step, a debit card provider aimed at teenagers. Introduced in September, Step quickly reached 1 million customers, partly from endorsements from social media influencers like Charli D’Amelio.

In December, Step raised $50 million in funding. The company was not looking for more money, MacDonald said. But investors started calling as soon as the app joined the top-downloaded finance app list shortly after it was released. The money came together in a matter of weeks, he said.

Investors are even clamoring to buy into broken deals. Plaid, which had agreed to sell itself to Visa for $5.6 billion last year, saw the deal unravel in January after facing antitrust scrutiny. Now the fast-growing company is in talks with investors to raise funding at a valuation near $15 billion, said two people with knowledge of the company who spoke on the condition they not be identified because the discussions are confidential. The Information earlier reported Plaid’s funding talks.

Sheel Mohnot, an investor at Better Tomorrow Ventures, said Plaid’s sale price to Visa was viewed as “so amazing” at the time. But now, with multiple fintech companies approaching $100 billion valuations, it looks low.

Some caution that the excitement has gotten far ahead of reality.

Robert Le, an analyst at PitchBook, pointed to the valuation of Affirm, which has a market capitalization of $20 billion, or roughly 40 times its annual revenue. That is significantly higher than the value that investors typically assign to blue-chip financial services companies. American Express, for example, trades at just three times its annual revenue.

“I think it’s a little irrational,” Le said. “Over the long haul, some of these companies will have to come down.”

Some of the startups have already hit growing pains. Chime, a banking startup, had a series of outages in 2019, leaving millions of customers with no access to their money for hours. Some Coinbase customers have said they were locked out of their accounts or experienced thefts of their money. And Robinhood faces nearly 50 lawsuits and multiple regulatory investigations after it halted trading for some stocks during a frenzy in “meme” stocks in January.

Leigh Drogen, chief executive of Estimize, an investment data startup, said the hiccups, high valuations and irrational behaviors have not canceled out all the progress in fintech.

“There are a lot of very, very real things, and then there’s some insanity,” he said. “That happens in every boom.”

SAN FRANCISCO — In 2009, Shamir Karkal and several colleagues struggled to raise money for a banking startup, Simple. Most of the 70 venture capital firms they met over the course of a year did not see the point of the idea, he said.

SAN FRANCISCO — In 2009, Shamir Karkal and several colleagues struggled to raise money for a banking startup, Simple. Most of the 70 venture capital firms they met over the course of a year did not see the point of the idea, he said. The few that did thought it would fail. By last year, things had changed. When Karkal set out to raise funding for his new financial technology startup, Sila, which makes regulatory compliance software, he garnered $5 million in a few months with a fraction of the pitches. He said he was frustrated it did not happen even faster. “I know folks in the space who raised rounds in less than one week,” he said. Sila is one of thousands of financial technology startups riding an investor frenzy driven by a growing realization that Big Finance is ripe for a tech makeover. When the pandemic forced businesses to speed up their usage of digital tools, including e-commerce and online banking, the demand for what is known as fintech exploded. Now startups with names like Blend, Brex and Dave that provide decidedly unglamorous banking, lending and payment processing offerings are hot tickets. That was punctuated this month when Stripe, a payments company, raised $600 million in a financing that valued it at $95 billion, the highest ever for a private startup in the United States. Financial technology companies are also making a splash on the stock market. On March 23, Robinhood, a stock trading app popular with young adults, filed for an initial public offering. And Coinbase, a cryptocurrency startup, is scheduled to go public in the next few weeks in what could be a $100 billion listing. Even tiny financial startups that have not formally introduced their products — such as Zeller, which will offer banking services to businesses; and Sivo, which is building lending software — have raised millions of dollars and been valued at nine-digit sums. In total, venture capital investors poured $44.4 billion into financial technology startups last year, up from $1.1 billion in 2009, according to PitchBook, which tracks private financings. Many investors are making bold predictions that these startups will upend big banks, established credit card providers — and in some cases, the entire financial system. “The banks are extremely vulnerable” because they have not kept up with what customers expect, said Mark Goldberg, an investor at the venture capital firm Index Ventures. He predicted $1 trillion of market value could transfer from old guard financial institutions to tech companies over the next two decades. “It’s what Amazon did to offline retail,” he said. “It’s just playing out 10 years later in fintech right now.” The financial technology startups that are riding the boom run the gamut. They provide services including checking accounts, mortgages, insurance, investing, payment processing and cryptocurrencies. Many are capitalizing on people’s long-simmering distrust of the big banks, especially after the 2008 financial crisis. Often, the startups offer slick and easy-to-use apps, no physical branches and low or no fees. And they are building on people’s growing familiarity over the past decade with tech tools and digital payments, a shift that has accelerated in the pandemic. Just as cheap cloud computing and smartphones once enabled a wave of new app startups, the financial technology sector has developed its own set of building blocks, allowing new companies to spring up faster. One of the building-block companies is Stripe. Founded in 2010, Stripe started out by offering to process payments for small businesses and startups. By 2018, it was worth $20 billion and had begun investing in other startups. Stripe now processes hundreds of billions of dollars in payments a year, has expanded to larger customers including Salesforce and Booking.com, and has made more than 30 investments in other fintech startups. “We are in a hypergrowth industry and within that, the company itself is experiencing hypergrowth,” Dhivya Suryadevara, Stripe’s chief financial officer, said in an interview. Domm Holland, chief executive of Fast, an e-commerce checkout software startup, said Stripe sped up his company’s progress. Customers who use Stripe to accept online payments can then use Fast’s software for their checkout process. “If Stripe didn’t exist today, we would first have to build Stripe,” Holland said. “That’s a lot of work. They’ve already done that.” Last year, as Fast’s business grew in the pandemic, investors began messaging Holland daily asking to invest in the company. “I have people LinkedIn messaging and emailing, just offering, ‘Take $5 million at any valuation you like,’” he said. “It is a bizarre world to live in.” He ended up raising $102 million for Fast in January. Stripe was one of the main investors in the financing. Other companies that play similar “building block” roles in the financial technology boom include Affirm, which offers lending and went public this year; Shopify, which enables e-commerce transactions; and Plaid, which helps apps connect with bank accounts. “The infrastructure has gone to a whole other level,” said CJ MacDonald, founder of Step, a debit card provider aimed at teenagers. Introduced in September, Step quickly reached 1 million customers, partly from endorsements from social media influencers like Charli D’Amelio. In December, Step raised $50 million in funding. The company was not looking for more money, MacDonald said. But investors started calling as soon as the app joined the top-downloaded finance app list shortly after it was released. The money came together in a matter of weeks, he said. Investors are even clamoring to buy into broken deals. Plaid, which had agreed to sell itself to Visa for $5.6 billion last year, saw the deal unravel in January after facing antitrust scrutiny. Now the fast-growing company is in talks with investors to raise funding at a valuation near $15 billion, said two people with knowledge of the company who spoke on the condition they not be identified because the discussions are confidential. The Information earlier reported Plaid’s funding talks. Sheel Mohnot, an investor at Better Tomorrow Ventures, said Plaid’s sale price to Visa was viewed as “so amazing” at the time. But now, with multiple fintech companies approaching $100 billion valuations, it looks low. Some caution that the excitement has gotten far ahead of reality. Robert Le, an analyst at PitchBook, pointed to the valuation of Affirm, which has a market capitalization of $20 billion, or roughly 40 times its annual revenue. That is significantly higher than the value that investors typically assign to blue-chip financial services companies. American Express, for example, trades at just three times its annual revenue. “I think it’s a little irrational,” Le said. “Over the long haul, some of these companies will have to come down.” Some of the startups have already hit growing pains. Chime, a banking startup, had a series of outages in 2019, leaving millions of customers with no access to their money for hours. Some Coinbase customers have said they were locked out of their accounts or experienced thefts of their money. And Robinhood faces nearly 50 lawsuits and multiple regulatory investigations after it halted trading for some stocks during a frenzy in “meme” stocks in January. Leigh Drogen, chief executive of Estimize, an investment data startup, said the hiccups, high valuations and irrational behaviors have not canceled out all the progress in fintech. “There are a lot of very, very real things, and then there’s some insanity,” he said. “That happens in every boom.”

The startup enemies of Wall Street are booming

The World Bank has estimated India’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth to be in the range of 7.5 to 12.5 per cent during FY 2021-22 (FY 22).&nbsp;

For the fiscal year 2020-21 ending on Wednesday, GDP contraction is estimated at 8.5 per cent as against a growth of 4 per cent during FY 2019-20.

The Washington-based global lender, in its latest South Asia Economic Focus report released ahead of the annual Spring meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), said that the economy was already slowing when the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded.

After reaching 8.3 per cent in FY17, growth decelerated to 4.0 per cent in FY20, it said.

The slowdown was caused by a decline in private consumption growth and shocks to the financial sector (the collapse of a large non-bank finance institution), which compounded pre-existing weaknesses in investment, it said.

Given the significant uncertainty pertaining to both epidemiological and policy developments, the real GDP growth for FY21/22 can range from 7.5 to 12.5 per cent, depending on how the ongoing vaccination campaign proceeds, whether new restrictions to mobility are required, and how quickly the world economy recovers, the World Bank said.

"It is amazing how far India has come compared to a year ago. If you think a year ago, how deep the recession was... unprecedented declines inactivity of 30 to 40 per cent, no clarity about vaccines, huge uncertainty about the disease. And then if you compare it now, India is bouncing back, has opened up many of the activities, started vaccination and is leading in the production of vaccination," Hans Timmer, World Bank Chief Economist for the South Asia Region, told in an interview.

However, the situation is still incredibly challenging, both on the pandemic side with the flare-up that is being experienced now. It is an enormous challenge to vaccinate everybody in India, the official said.

"Most of the people underestimate the challenge," he said.

On the economic side, Timmer said that even with the rebound and there is uncertainty here about the numbers, but it basically means that over two years there was no growth in India and there might well have been over two years, a decline in per capita income.

"That's such a difference from what India was accustomed to. And it means that there are still many parts of the economy that have not recovered or have not fared as well as they would have without a pandemic. There is a huge concern about the financial markets," Timmer said.

"As economic activity normalises, domestically and in key export markets, the current account is expected to return to mild deficits (around 1 per cent in FY22 and FY23) and capital inflows are projected by continued accommodative monetary policy and abundant international liquidity conditions," the report said.

Noting that the COVID-19 shock will lead to a long-lasting inflexion in India's fiscal trajectory, the report said that the general government deficit is expected to remain above 10 per cent of GDP until FY22. As a result, public debt is projected to peak at almost 90 per cent of GDP in FY21 before declining gradually thereafter.

As growth resumes and the labour market prospects improve, poverty reduction is expected to return to its pre-pandemic trajectory.

The poverty rate (at the USD 1.90 line) is projected to return to pre-pandemic levels in FY22, falling within 6 and 9 per cent, and fall further to between 4 and 7 per cent by FY24, the World Bank said.

The Indian economy, Timmer said, has bounced back from the initial enormous hit.

"It has bounced back even quicker than we initially thought. The availability of vaccines helped a lot there. That made it possible to open up more and in general to improve confidence in the economy.

"If you have no further deterioration or fall back then, that means that the economy this year would grow around nine per cent. With some additional growth, you are in double digits. That's the positive story," Timmer said, adding that there is also uncertainty.

India also has the advantage as compared to some of the other countries that it has foreign direct investment inflows.

"(This) probably has to do also with the geopolitical changes in the world economy... investors moving away from China and looking at India. That is an advantage, but you don't see very strong investments, you see some first signs of domestic investments recovering, that is still an uncertain point," Timmer said.

Responding to a question, Timmer said it is "impressive" how quickly the Indian government came up with relief efforts including the transfer of money, measures allowing companies to forego debt service.

"Given the difficult situation, I think that was very impressive. At the same time, it was not enough because, and that's one of the lessons of the crisis.

"There are so many people and so many, very small companies that are really difficult to reach, and you need a more comprehensive overhaul of the whole system to make the support a lot more universal," Timmer added.

According to officials, India has so far registered 1,20,95,855 COVID-19 cases and 1,62,114 fatalities.

The number of people who have recuperated from the disease surged to 1,13,93,021, while the case fatality rate stands at 1.34 per cent.

(With inputs from agencies)

The World Bank has estimated India’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth to be in the range of 7.5 to 12.5 per cent during FY 2021-22 (FY 22). For the fiscal year 2020-21 ending on Wednesday, GDP contraction is estimated at 8.

The World Bank has estimated India’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth to be in the range of 7.5 to 12.5 per cent during FY 2021-22 (FY 22). For the fiscal year 2020-21 ending on Wednesday, GDP contraction is estimated at 8.5 per cent as against a growth of 4 per cent during FY 2019-20. The Washington-based global lender, in its latest South Asia Economic Focus report released ahead of the annual Spring meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), said that the economy was already slowing when the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. After reaching 8.3 per cent in FY17, growth decelerated to 4.0 per cent in FY20, it said. The slowdown was caused by a decline in private consumption growth and shocks to the financial sector (the collapse of a large non-bank finance institution), which compounded pre-existing weaknesses in investment, it said. Given the significant uncertainty pertaining to both epidemiological and policy developments, the real GDP growth for FY21/22 can range from 7.5 to 12.5 per cent, depending on how the ongoing vaccination campaign proceeds, whether new restrictions to mobility are required, and how quickly the world economy recovers, the World Bank said. "It is amazing how far India has come compared to a year ago. If you think a year ago, how deep the recession was... unprecedented declines inactivity of 30 to 40 per cent, no clarity about vaccines, huge uncertainty about the disease. And then if you compare it now, India is bouncing back, has opened up many of the activities, started vaccination and is leading in the production of vaccination," Hans Timmer, World Bank Chief Economist for the South Asia Region, told in an interview. However, the situation is still incredibly challenging, both on the pandemic side with the flare-up that is being experienced now. It is an enormous challenge to vaccinate everybody in India, the official said. "Most of the people underestimate the challenge," he said. On the economic side, Timmer said that even with the rebound and there is uncertainty here about the numbers, but it basically means that over two years there was no growth in India and there might well have been over two years, a decline in per capita income. "That's such a difference from what India was accustomed to. And it means that there are still many parts of the economy that have not recovered or have not fared as well as they would have without a pandemic. There is a huge concern about the financial markets," Timmer said. "As economic activity normalises, domestically and in key export markets, the current account is expected to return to mild deficits (around 1 per cent in FY22 and FY23) and capital inflows are projected by continued accommodative monetary policy and abundant international liquidity conditions," the report said. Noting that the COVID-19 shock will lead to a long-lasting inflexion in India's fiscal trajectory, the report said that the general government deficit is expected to remain above 10 per cent of GDP until FY22. As a result, public debt is projected to peak at almost 90 per cent of GDP in FY21 before declining gradually thereafter. As growth resumes and the labour market prospects improve, poverty reduction is expected to return to its pre-pandemic trajectory. The poverty rate (at the USD 1.90 line) is projected to return to pre-pandemic levels in FY22, falling within 6 and 9 per cent, and fall further to between 4 and 7 per cent by FY24, the World Bank said. The Indian economy, Timmer said, has bounced back from the initial enormous hit. "It has bounced back even quicker than we initially thought. The availability of vaccines helped a lot there. That made it possible to open up more and in general to improve confidence in the economy. "If you have no further deterioration or fall back then, that means that the economy this year would grow around nine per cent. With some additional growth, you are in double digits. That's the positive story," Timmer said, adding that there is also uncertainty. India also has the advantage as compared to some of the other countries that it has foreign direct investment inflows. "(This) probably has to do also with the geopolitical changes in the world economy... investors moving away from China and looking at India. That is an advantage, but you don't see very strong investments, you see some first signs of domestic investments recovering, that is still an uncertain point," Timmer said. Responding to a question, Timmer said it is "impressive" how quickly the Indian government came up with relief efforts including the transfer of money, measures allowing companies to forego debt service. "Given the difficult situation, I think that was very impressive. At the same time, it was not enough because, and that's one of the lessons of the crisis. "There are so many people and so many, very small companies that are really difficult to reach, and you need a more comprehensive overhaul of the whole system to make the support a lot more universal," Timmer added. According to officials, India has so far registered 1,20,95,855 COVID-19 cases and 1,62,114 fatalities. The number of people who have recuperated from the disease surged to 1,13,93,021, while the case fatality rate stands at 1.34 per cent. (With inputs from agencies)

India’s GDP growth estimated to be in the range of 7.5-12.5%: World Bank

Businesses with turnover of more than Rs 5 crore will have to furnish six-digit HSN or tariff code on the invoices issued for supplies of taxable goods and services from April 1, the Finance Ministry said on Wednesday.&nbsp;

Those with a turnover of up to Rs 5 crore in the preceding financial year would be required to mandatorily furnish four-digit HSN code on B2B invoices. Earlier, the requirement was four-digits and two-digits respectively.&nbsp;

“With effect from the 1st April, 2021, GST taxpayers will have to furnish HSN (Harmonised System of Nomenclature Code), or Service Accounting Code (SAC) in their invoices, as per the revised requirement, the Ministry said in a statement.

In trade parlance, every product is categorised under an HSN code (Harmonised System of Nomenclature). It helps in systematic classification of goods across the globe. HSN codes for goods at 6 digits are universally common. Therefore, common HSN codes apply to Customs and GST.&nbsp;

Accordingly, codes prescribed in the Customs tariff are used for the GST purposes too. The Ministry said manufacturers and importers/exporters have been commonly using HSN Codes. Manufacturers were furnishing these codes even in the pre-GST regime. Importers and exporters have been furnishing these codes in import/export documents.&nbsp;

Traders would mostly be using HSN codes furnished in the invoices issued to them by the manufacturer or importer suppliers.

“A large number of GST taxpayers are already furnishing HS codes/SAC at 6/8 digits on a voluntary basis on the invoices, e -waybills and GSTR 1 returns,” it added.

AMRG &amp; Associates Senior Partner Rajat Mohan said traders, manufacturers and services providers would be required to give a more precise HSN code while issuing an invoice to the supplies with effect from April 1. “This will help tax officers with deeper data analytics for every item supplied and help them in arresting tax evasion emanating from fake invoices and irregular tax credit claims,” Mohan added.

Businesses with turnover of more than Rs 5 crore will have to furnish six-digit HSN or tariff code on the invoices issued for supplies of taxable goods and services from April 1, the Finance Ministry said on Wednesday.

Businesses with turnover of more than Rs 5 crore will have to furnish six-digit HSN or tariff code on the invoices issued for supplies of taxable goods and services from April 1, the Finance Ministry said on Wednesday. Those with a turnover of up to Rs 5 crore in the preceding financial year would be required to mandatorily furnish four-digit HSN code on B2B invoices. Earlier, the requirement was four-digits and two-digits respectively. “With effect from the 1st April, 2021, GST taxpayers will have to furnish HSN (Harmonised System of Nomenclature Code), or Service Accounting Code (SAC) in their invoices, as per the revised requirement, the Ministry said in a statement. In trade parlance, every product is categorised under an HSN code (Harmonised System of Nomenclature). It helps in systematic classification of goods across the globe. HSN codes for goods at 6 digits are universally common. Therefore, common HSN codes apply to Customs and GST. Accordingly, codes prescribed in the Customs tariff are used for the GST purposes too. The Ministry said manufacturers and importers/exporters have been commonly using HSN Codes. Manufacturers were furnishing these codes even in the pre-GST regime. Importers and exporters have been furnishing these codes in import/export documents. Traders would mostly be using HSN codes furnished in the invoices issued to them by the manufacturer or importer suppliers. “A large number of GST taxpayers are already furnishing HS codes/SAC at 6/8 digits on a voluntary basis on the invoices, e -waybills and GSTR 1 returns,” it added. AMRG & Associates Senior Partner Rajat Mohan said traders, manufacturers and services providers would be required to give a more precise HSN code while issuing an invoice to the supplies with effect from April 1. “This will help tax officers with deeper data analytics for every item supplied and help them in arresting tax evasion emanating from fake invoices and irregular tax credit claims,” Mohan added.

6-digit HSN code mandatory in invoices for biz with over Rs 5crore turnover

Investors are shifting focus to the upcoming OPEC+ ministerial meeting that is happening this Thursday (01 April). Analysts expect the group to extend supply curbs given dim demand prospects.

World Business Watch: Analysts expect OPEC+ to extend supply curbs

US consumer confidence has raised this month to its highest level since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, supporting views that economic growth will accelerate in the coming months, driven by more fiscal stimulus and an improving public health situation.

World Business Watch: US consumer confidence hits one-year high

Brazil’s economy added over 400,000 formal jobs in February, the highest monthly figure since the data series began in 1992, led by a surge in the dominant services sector.

World Business Watch: Brazil creates over 400,000 formal jobs in Feb, highest on record

Dozens of the most prominent Black business leaders in America are banding together to call on companies to fight a wave of restrictive voting bills being advanced by Republicans in at least 43 states. The campaign appears to be the first time that so many powerful Black executives have organized to directly call out their peers for failing to stand up for racial justice.

The effort, led by Kenneth Chenault, a former chief executive of American Express, and Kenneth Frazier, the chief executive of Merck, is a response to the swift passage of a Georgia law that they contend makes it harder for Black people to vote. As the debate about that bill raged in recent weeks, most major corporations — including those with headquarters in Atlanta — did not take a position on the legislation.

“There is no middle ground here,” Chenault said. “You either are for more people voting, or you want to suppress the vote.”

The executives did not criticize specific companies but instead called on all of corporate America to publicly and directly oppose new laws that would restrict the rights of Black voters and to use their clout, money and lobbyists to sway the debate with lawmakers.

“This impacts all Americans, but we also need to acknowledge the history of voting rights for African Americans,” Chenault said. “And as African American executives in corporate America, what we were saying is we want corporate America to understand that, and we want them to work with us.”

The letter was signed by 72 Black executives. They included Roger Ferguson Jr., chief executive of TIAA; Mellody Hobson and John Rogers Jr., co-chief executives of Ariel Investments; Robert Smith, chief executive of Vista Equity Partners; and Raymond McGuire, a former Citigroup executive who is running for mayor of New York.

In the days before the Georgia law was passed, almost no major companies spoke out against the legislation, which introduced stricter voter identification requirements for absentee balloting, limited drop boxes and expanded the legislature’s power over elections.

Big corporations based in Atlanta, including Delta Air Lines, Coca-Cola and Home Depot, offered general statements of support for voting rights, but none took a specific stance on the bills. The same was true for most of the executives who signed the new letter, including Frazier and Chenault.

Frazier said he had paid only peripheral attention to the matter before the Georgia law was passed Thursday. “When the law passed, I started paying attention,” he said.

When Frazier realized what was in the new law, and that similar bills were being advanced in other states, he and Chenault decided to take action. On Sunday, they began emailing and texting with a group of Black executives, discussing what more corporations could do.

“There seems to be no one speaking out,” Frazier said. “We thought if we spoke up, it might lead to a situation where others felt the responsibility to speak up.”

Among the other executives who signed the letter were Ursula Burns, a former chief executive of Xerox; Richard Parsons, a former chair of Citigroup and chief executive of Time Warner; and Tony West, chief legal officer at Uber. The group of leaders, with support from the Black Economic Alliance, bought a full-page ad in the Wednesday print edition of The New York Times.

The executives are hoping that big companies will help prevent dozens of similar bills in other states from becoming law.

“The Georgia legislature was the first one,” Frazier said. “If corporate America doesn’t stand up, we’ll get these laws passed in many places in this country.”

In 2017, Frazier was the first chief executive to publicly resign from President Donald Trump’s business advisory councils after the president’s equivocating response to white nationalist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. His resignation led other chief executives to distance themselves from Trump, and the advisory groups disbanded.

“As African American business executives, we don’t have the luxury of being bystanders to injustice,” Frazier said. “We don’t have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines when these kinds of injustices are happening all around us.”

Companies have taken stands on state legislation in recent years, often to powerful effect. In 2016 and 2017, as conservatives advanced so-called bathroom bills in states including Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia and Texas, big companies went so far as to threaten to take their business elsewhere if the laws were enacted. Those bills were never signed into law.

Last year, the Human Rights Campaign began persuading companies to sign on to a pledge that states their “clear opposition to harmful legislation aimed at restricting the access of LGBTQ people in society.” Dozens of major companies, including AT&amp;T, Facebook, Nike and Pfizer, signed on.

To Chenault, the contrast between the business community’s response to that issue and to voting restrictions that disproportionately harm Black voters was telling.

“You had 60 major companies — Amazon, Google, American Airlines — that signed on to the statement that states a very clear opposition to harmful legislation aimed at restricting the access of LGBTQ people in society,” he said. “So, you know, it is bizarre that we don’t have companies standing up to this.”

“This is not new,” Chenault added. “When it comes to race, there’s differential treatment. That’s the reality.”

Activists are calling for boycotts of Delta and Coca-Cola for their tepid engagement before the Georgia law was passed. And there are signs that other companies and sports leagues are becoming more engaged with the issue.

The head of the Major League Baseball Players Association said he “would look forward” to a discussion about moving the All-Star Game from Atlanta, where it is planned for July. And Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, released a statement Tuesday affirming his company’s commitment to voting rights.

“Voting is fundamental to the health and future of our democracy,” he said. “We regularly encourage our employees to exercise their fundamental right to vote, and we stand against efforts that may prevent them from being able to do so.”

That language echoed statements made by many big companies before the Georgia law was passed. The executives who signed the letter are likely to seek more.

“People ask, ‘What can I do?’” Chenault said. “I’ll tell you what you can do. You can publicly oppose any discriminatory legislation and all measures designed to limit Americans’ ability to vote.” 
&nbsp;

Dozens of the most prominent Black business leaders in America are banding together to call on companies to fight a wave of restrictive voting bills being advanced by Republicans in at least 43 states.

Dozens of the most prominent Black business leaders in America are banding together to call on companies to fight a wave of restrictive voting bills being advanced by Republicans in at least 43 states. The campaign appears to be the first time that so many powerful Black executives have organized to directly call out their peers for failing to stand up for racial justice. The effort, led by Kenneth Chenault, a former chief executive of American Express, and Kenneth Frazier, the chief executive of Merck, is a response to the swift passage of a Georgia law that they contend makes it harder for Black people to vote. As the debate about that bill raged in recent weeks, most major corporations — including those with headquarters in Atlanta — did not take a position on the legislation. “There is no middle ground here,” Chenault said. “You either are for more people voting, or you want to suppress the vote.” The executives did not criticize specific companies but instead called on all of corporate America to publicly and directly oppose new laws that would restrict the rights of Black voters and to use their clout, money and lobbyists to sway the debate with lawmakers. “This impacts all Americans, but we also need to acknowledge the history of voting rights for African Americans,” Chenault said. “And as African American executives in corporate America, what we were saying is we want corporate America to understand that, and we want them to work with us.” The letter was signed by 72 Black executives. They included Roger Ferguson Jr., chief executive of TIAA; Mellody Hobson and John Rogers Jr., co-chief executives of Ariel Investments; Robert Smith, chief executive of Vista Equity Partners; and Raymond McGuire, a former Citigroup executive who is running for mayor of New York. In the days before the Georgia law was passed, almost no major companies spoke out against the legislation, which introduced stricter voter identification requirements for absentee balloting, limited drop boxes and expanded the legislature’s power over elections. Big corporations based in Atlanta, including Delta Air Lines, Coca-Cola and Home Depot, offered general statements of support for voting rights, but none took a specific stance on the bills. The same was true for most of the executives who signed the new letter, including Frazier and Chenault. Frazier said he had paid only peripheral attention to the matter before the Georgia law was passed Thursday. “When the law passed, I started paying attention,” he said. When Frazier realized what was in the new law, and that similar bills were being advanced in other states, he and Chenault decided to take action. On Sunday, they began emailing and texting with a group of Black executives, discussing what more corporations could do. “There seems to be no one speaking out,” Frazier said. “We thought if we spoke up, it might lead to a situation where others felt the responsibility to speak up.” Among the other executives who signed the letter were Ursula Burns, a former chief executive of Xerox; Richard Parsons, a former chair of Citigroup and chief executive of Time Warner; and Tony West, chief legal officer at Uber. The group of leaders, with support from the Black Economic Alliance, bought a full-page ad in the Wednesday print edition of The New York Times. The executives are hoping that big companies will help prevent dozens of similar bills in other states from becoming law. “The Georgia legislature was the first one,” Frazier said. “If corporate America doesn’t stand up, we’ll get these laws passed in many places in this country.” In 2017, Frazier was the first chief executive to publicly resign from President Donald Trump’s business advisory councils after the president’s equivocating response to white nationalist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. His resignation led other chief executives to distance themselves from Trump, and the advisory groups disbanded. “As African American business executives, we don’t have the luxury of being bystanders to injustice,” Frazier said. “We don’t have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines when these kinds of injustices are happening all around us.” Companies have taken stands on state legislation in recent years, often to powerful effect. In 2016 and 2017, as conservatives advanced so-called bathroom bills in states including Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia and Texas, big companies went so far as to threaten to take their business elsewhere if the laws were enacted. Those bills were never signed into law. Last year, the Human Rights Campaign began persuading companies to sign on to a pledge that states their “clear opposition to harmful legislation aimed at restricting the access of LGBTQ people in society.” Dozens of major companies, including AT&T, Facebook, Nike and Pfizer, signed on. To Chenault, the contrast between the business community’s response to that issue and to voting restrictions that disproportionately harm Black voters was telling. “You had 60 major companies — Amazon, Google, American Airlines — that signed on to the statement that states a very clear opposition to harmful legislation aimed at restricting the access of LGBTQ people in society,” he said. “So, you know, it is bizarre that we don’t have companies standing up to this.” “This is not new,” Chenault added. “When it comes to race, there’s differential treatment. That’s the reality.” Activists are calling for boycotts of Delta and Coca-Cola for their tepid engagement before the Georgia law was passed. And there are signs that other companies and sports leagues are becoming more engaged with the issue. The head of the Major League Baseball Players Association said he “would look forward” to a discussion about moving the All-Star Game from Atlanta, where it is planned for July. And Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, released a statement Tuesday affirming his company’s commitment to voting rights. “Voting is fundamental to the health and future of our democracy,” he said. “We regularly encourage our employees to exercise their fundamental right to vote, and we stand against efforts that may prevent them from being able to do so.” That language echoed statements made by many big companies before the Georgia law was passed. The executives who signed the letter are likely to seek more. “People ask, ‘What can I do?’” Chenault said. “I’ll tell you what you can do. You can publicly oppose any discriminatory legislation and all measures designed to limit Americans’ ability to vote.”

Black executives call on corporations to fight restrictive voting laws

The traffic jam at the Suez Canal will soon begin easing, but behemoth container ships such as the one that blocked that crucial passageway for almost a week and caused headaches for shippers around the world aren’t going anywhere.

Global supply chains were already under pressure when the Ever Given, a ship longer than the height of the Empire State Building and capable of carrying furnishings for 20,000 apartments, wedged itself between the banks of the Suez Canal last week. It was freed Monday, but it left behind “disruptions and backlogs in global shipping that could take weeks, possibly months, to unravel,” according to A.P. Moller-Maersk, the world’s largest shipping company.

The crisis was short, but it was also years in the making.

For decades, shipping lines have been making bigger and bigger vessels, driven by an expanding global appetite for electronics, clothes, toys and other goods. The growth in ship size, which sped up in recent years, often made economic sense: Bigger vessels are generally cheaper to build and operate on a per-container basis. But the largest ships can come with their own set of problems, not only for the canals and ports that have to handle them, but for the companies that build them.

“They did what they thought was most efficient for themselves — make the ships big — and they didn’t pay much attention at all to the rest of the world,” said Marc Levinson, an economist and author of “Outside the Box,” a history of globalization. “But it turns out that these really big ships are not as efficient as the shipping lines had imagined.”

Despite the risks they pose, however, massive vessels still dominate global shipping. According to Alphaliner, a shipping-data firm, the global fleet of container ships includes 133 of the largest ship type — those that can carry 18,000 to 24,000 containers. Another 53 ships are on order.

The world’s first commercially successful container trip took place in 1956 aboard a converted steamship, which transported a few dozen containers from New Jersey to Texas. The industry has grown steadily in the decades since, but as global trade accelerated in the 1980s, so did the growth of the shipping industry — and ship size.

In that decade, the average capacity of a container ship grew by 28%, according to the International Transport Forum, a unit of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Container-ship capacity grew again by 36% in the 1990s. Then, in 2006, Maersk introduced a massive new vessel, the Emma Maersk, which could hold about 15,000 containers, almost 70% more than any other vessel.

“Instead of this pattern of small increases in capacity over time, all of a sudden we had a quantum leap and that really set off an arms race,” Levinson said.

Today, the largest ships can hold as many as 24,000 containers — a standard 20-foot box can hold a pair of midsize SUVs or enough produce to fill one to two aisles in a grocery store.

The growth of the shipping industry and ship size has played a central role in creating the modern economy, helping to make China a manufacturing powerhouse and facilitating the rise of everything from e-commerce to retailers such as Ikea and Amazon. To the container lines, building bigger made sense: Larger ships allowed them to squeeze out savings on construction, fuel and staffing.

“Ultra Large Container Vessels (ULCV) are extremely efficient when it is about transporting large quantities of goods around the globe,” Tim Seifert, a spokesman for Hapag-Lloyd, a large shipping company, said in a statement. “We also doubt that it would make shipping safer or more environmentally friendly if there would be more- or less-efficient vessels on the oceans or in the canals.”

A.P. Moller-Maersk said it was premature to blame Ever Given’s size for what happened in the Suez. Ultralarge ships “have existed for many years and have sailed through the Suez Canal without issues,” company chief technical officer Palle Brodsgaard Laursen said in a statement Tuesday.

But the growth in ship size has come at a cost. It has effectively pitted port against port, canal against canal. To make way for bigger ships, for example, the Panama Canal expanded in 2016 at a cost of more than $5 billion.

That set off a race among ports along the East Coast of the United States to attract the larger ships coming through the canal. Several ports, including those in Baltimore, Miami and Norfolk, Virginia, began dredging projects to deepen their harbors. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey spearheaded a $1.7 billion project to raise the Bayonne Bridge to accommodate mammoth ships laden with cargo from Asia and elsewhere.

The race to accommodate ever-larger ships also pushed ports and terminal operators to buy new equipment. This month, for example, the Port of Oakland, California, erected three 1,600-ton cranes that would, in the words of one port executive, allow it to “receive the biggest ships.”

But while ports incurred costs for accommodating larger ships, they didn’t reap all of the benefits, according to Jan Tiedemann, a senior analyst at Alphaliner.

“The savings are almost exclusively on the side of the carrier, so there was an argument that the carriers have been in the driving seat and have just pushed through with this big tonnage, while terminal operators, ports and, in some cases, the taxpayer, has footed the bill,” he said.

The shift to bigger ships also coincided with and contributed to industry consolidation that has both limited competition among shipping giants and made the world more vulnerable to supply disruptions. Buying and maintaining large vessels is expensive, and shippers who couldn’t afford those costs had to find ways to become bigger themselves. Some firms merged, and others joined alliances that allowed them to pool their ships to offer more-frequent service.

Those trends aren’t necessarily all bad. The alliances allow shippers to offer expanded service and help keep costs low for customers. And the fact that bigger ships cut fuel costs has helped the industry make the case that it is doing its part to reduce planet-warming emissions.

But the argument for even bigger ships may finally be fading, even for container lines themselves — a concept known in economics as the law of diminishing returns.

For one, the benefits of building bigger tend to shrink with each successive round of growth, according to Olaf Merk, lead author of a 2015 International Transport Forum report on very big ships. According to the report, the savings from moving to ships that can carry 19,000 containers were four to six times smaller than those realized by the previous expansion of ship size. And most of the savings came from more efficient ship engines than the size of the ship.

“There’s still economies of scale, but less and less as the ships become bigger,” Merk said.

The bigger vessels can also call on fewer ports and navigate through fewer tight waterways. They are also harder to fill, cost more to insure and pose a greater threat to supply chains when things go wrong, such as Ever Given’s beaching in the Suez Canal. Giant ships are also designed for a world in which trade is growing rapidly, which is far from guaranteed these days given high geopolitical and economic tensions between the United States and China, between Britain and the European Union and between other large trading partners.

The traffic jam at the Suez Canal will soon begin easing, but behemoth container ships such as the one that blocked that crucial passageway for almost a week and caused headaches for shippers around the world aren’t going anywhere.

The traffic jam at the Suez Canal will soon begin easing, but behemoth container ships such as the one that blocked that crucial passageway for almost a week and caused headaches for shippers around the world aren’t going anywhere. Global supply chains were already under pressure when the Ever Given, a ship longer than the height of the Empire State Building and capable of carrying furnishings for 20,000 apartments, wedged itself between the banks of the Suez Canal last week. It was freed Monday, but it left behind “disruptions and backlogs in global shipping that could take weeks, possibly months, to unravel,” according to A.P. Moller-Maersk, the world’s largest shipping company. The crisis was short, but it was also years in the making. For decades, shipping lines have been making bigger and bigger vessels, driven by an expanding global appetite for electronics, clothes, toys and other goods. The growth in ship size, which sped up in recent years, often made economic sense: Bigger vessels are generally cheaper to build and operate on a per-container basis. But the largest ships can come with their own set of problems, not only for the canals and ports that have to handle them, but for the companies that build them. “They did what they thought was most efficient for themselves — make the ships big — and they didn’t pay much attention at all to the rest of the world,” said Marc Levinson, an economist and author of “Outside the Box,” a history of globalization. “But it turns out that these really big ships are not as efficient as the shipping lines had imagined.” Despite the risks they pose, however, massive vessels still dominate global shipping. According to Alphaliner, a shipping-data firm, the global fleet of container ships includes 133 of the largest ship type — those that can carry 18,000 to 24,000 containers. Another 53 ships are on order. The world’s first commercially successful container trip took place in 1956 aboard a converted steamship, which transported a few dozen containers from New Jersey to Texas. The industry has grown steadily in the decades since, but as global trade accelerated in the 1980s, so did the growth of the shipping industry — and ship size. In that decade, the average capacity of a container ship grew by 28%, according to the International Transport Forum, a unit of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Container-ship capacity grew again by 36% in the 1990s. Then, in 2006, Maersk introduced a massive new vessel, the Emma Maersk, which could hold about 15,000 containers, almost 70% more than any other vessel. “Instead of this pattern of small increases in capacity over time, all of a sudden we had a quantum leap and that really set off an arms race,” Levinson said. Today, the largest ships can hold as many as 24,000 containers — a standard 20-foot box can hold a pair of midsize SUVs or enough produce to fill one to two aisles in a grocery store. The growth of the shipping industry and ship size has played a central role in creating the modern economy, helping to make China a manufacturing powerhouse and facilitating the rise of everything from e-commerce to retailers such as Ikea and Amazon. To the container lines, building bigger made sense: Larger ships allowed them to squeeze out savings on construction, fuel and staffing. “Ultra Large Container Vessels (ULCV) are extremely efficient when it is about transporting large quantities of goods around the globe,” Tim Seifert, a spokesman for Hapag-Lloyd, a large shipping company, said in a statement. “We also doubt that it would make shipping safer or more environmentally friendly if there would be more- or less-efficient vessels on the oceans or in the canals.” A.P. Moller-Maersk said it was premature to blame Ever Given’s size for what happened in the Suez. Ultralarge ships “have existed for many years and have sailed through the Suez Canal without issues,” company chief technical officer Palle Brodsgaard Laursen said in a statement Tuesday. But the growth in ship size has come at a cost. It has effectively pitted port against port, canal against canal. To make way for bigger ships, for example, the Panama Canal expanded in 2016 at a cost of more than $5 billion. That set off a race among ports along the East Coast of the United States to attract the larger ships coming through the canal. Several ports, including those in Baltimore, Miami and Norfolk, Virginia, began dredging projects to deepen their harbors. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey spearheaded a $1.7 billion project to raise the Bayonne Bridge to accommodate mammoth ships laden with cargo from Asia and elsewhere. The race to accommodate ever-larger ships also pushed ports and terminal operators to buy new equipment. This month, for example, the Port of Oakland, California, erected three 1,600-ton cranes that would, in the words of one port executive, allow it to “receive the biggest ships.” But while ports incurred costs for accommodating larger ships, they didn’t reap all of the benefits, according to Jan Tiedemann, a senior analyst at Alphaliner. “The savings are almost exclusively on the side of the carrier, so there was an argument that the carriers have been in the driving seat and have just pushed through with this big tonnage, while terminal operators, ports and, in some cases, the taxpayer, has footed the bill,” he said. The shift to bigger ships also coincided with and contributed to industry consolidation that has both limited competition among shipping giants and made the world more vulnerable to supply disruptions. Buying and maintaining large vessels is expensive, and shippers who couldn’t afford those costs had to find ways to become bigger themselves. Some firms merged, and others joined alliances that allowed them to pool their ships to offer more-frequent service. Those trends aren’t necessarily all bad. The alliances allow shippers to offer expanded service and help keep costs low for customers. And the fact that bigger ships cut fuel costs has helped the industry make the case that it is doing its part to reduce planet-warming emissions. But the argument for even bigger ships may finally be fading, even for container lines themselves — a concept known in economics as the law of diminishing returns. For one, the benefits of building bigger tend to shrink with each successive round of growth, according to Olaf Merk, lead author of a 2015 International Transport Forum report on very big ships. According to the report, the savings from moving to ships that can carry 19,000 containers were four to six times smaller than those realized by the previous expansion of ship size. And most of the savings came from more efficient ship engines than the size of the ship. “There’s still economies of scale, but less and less as the ships become bigger,” Merk said. The bigger vessels can also call on fewer ports and navigate through fewer tight waterways. They are also harder to fill, cost more to insure and pose a greater threat to supply chains when things go wrong, such as Ever Given’s beaching in the Suez Canal. Giant ships are also designed for a world in which trade is growing rapidly, which is far from guaranteed these days given high geopolitical and economic tensions between the United States and China, between Britain and the European Union and between other large trading partners.

Why the world’s container ships grew so big

German carmaker Volkswagen is not changing its name in the United States, contrary to a news release commissioned by the company itself. Turns out, the company announced that the US operations would be renamed to&nbsp;“Voltswagen of America” to shed light on its efforts in development of electric vehicles.

However, it all turned out to be an early April Fool’s gimmick.&nbsp;

Soon after the announcement, many criticised the company for the misleading news release, while others reminded the company of the diesel scandal from years ago whereby thousands of customers were misled into believing their cars were in line with environment protocols, but a cheat device was used to show these readings.

"Volkswagen&nbsp;of America will not be changing its name to Voltswagen. The renaming was designed to be an announcement in the spirit of April Fool’s Day, highlighting the launch of the all-electric ID.4 SUV and signaling our commitment to bringing electric mobility to all," a Volkswagen spokesperson said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/business-economy/volkswagen-aims-to-use-its-size-to-head-off-tesla-370942" hreflang="en">Volkswagen aims to use its size to head off Tesla</a>

The news release first emerged on the company’s website, and included a detailed description of the company’s rebranding efforts, including new logos. But it was withdrawn later on Tuesday. Reuters cited a Volkswagen spokesman in Germany saying that the rebranding was a “nice idea” to market the vehicles.

Volkswagen is the world’s second-largest carmaker, and expects to increase electric car deliveries this year in a bid to completely switch from fuel cars.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/business-economy/volkswagen-signs-deal-with-microsoft-to-develop-self-driving-vehicles-362855" hreflang="en">Volkswagen signs deal with Microsoft to develop self-driving vehicles</a>

The company is investing $19 billion in electrification and digitalisation of its vehicles by 2025. The company has committed to selling one million electric vehicles worldwide by 2025.

In 2015, the company admitted to rigging the software in diesel cars for better results. The company had to pay $38 billion in fines and legal costs.

After pleading guilty to fraud, obstruction of justice, and making false statements in 2017, Volkswagen reached a $4.3 billion settlement with the US Justice Department.

German carmaker Volkswagen is not changing its name in the United States, contrary to a news release commissioned by the company itself. Turns out, the company announced that the US operations would be renamed to “Voltswagen of America” to shed light on its efforts in development of electric vehicles.

German carmaker Volkswagen is not changing its name in the United States, contrary to a news release commissioned by the company itself. Turns out, the company announced that the US operations would be renamed to “Voltswagen of America” to shed light on its efforts in development of electric vehicles. However, it all turned out to be an early April Fool’s gimmick. Soon after the announcement, many criticised the company for the misleading news release, while others reminded the company of the diesel scandal from years ago whereby thousands of customers were misled into believing their cars were in line with environment protocols, but a cheat device was used to show these readings. "Volkswagen of America will not be changing its name to Voltswagen. The renaming was designed to be an announcement in the spirit of April Fool’s Day, highlighting the launch of the all-electric ID.4 SUV and signaling our commitment to bringing electric mobility to all," a Volkswagen spokesperson said. Also read: Volkswagen aims to use its size to head off Tesla The news release first emerged on the company’s website, and included a detailed description of the company’s rebranding efforts, including new logos. But it was withdrawn later on Tuesday. Reuters cited a Volkswagen spokesman in Germany saying that the rebranding was a “nice idea” to market the vehicles. Volkswagen is the world’s second-largest carmaker, and expects to increase electric car deliveries this year in a bid to completely switch from fuel cars. Also read: Volkswagen signs deal with Microsoft to develop self-driving vehicles The company is investing $19 billion in electrification and digitalisation of its vehicles by 2025. The company has committed to selling one million electric vehicles worldwide by 2025. In 2015, the company admitted to rigging the software in diesel cars for better results. The company had to pay $38 billion in fines and legal costs. After pleading guilty to fraud, obstruction of justice, and making false statements in 2017, Volkswagen reached a $4.3 billion settlement with the US Justice Department.

No, Volkswagen is not changing its name to 'Voltswagen of America'

Domestic stock market indices, Sensex and Nifty ended over 1 per cent lower on Wednesday dragged by heavy selling in private banks and IT stocks amid mixed global cues.&nbsp;

The 30-share BSE index ended 627.43 points or 1.25 per cent lower at 49,509.15, and the broader NSE Nifty slumped 154.40 points or 1.04 per cent to 14,690.70.

The HDFC duo was the top laggard in the Sensex pack, shedding nearly 4 per cent, followed by PowerGrid, Tech Mahindra, ICICI Bank, ONGC, Kotak Bank, Asian Paints, Infosys and Reliance Industries.

On the other hand, ITC, Bajaj Finserv, HUL, SBI and TCS were among the gainers.

"Domestic equities traded lower as concerns pertaining to a spike in COVID-19 cases and resultant restrictions continued to weigh on investors' sentiments,? said Binod Modi, Head - Strategy at Reliance Securities.

Further, rise in US treasury yields and the strengthening dollar index aggravated concerns, he added.

Financials, especially private banks, witnessed heavy profit-booking, which along with selling pressure in IT stocks dragged benchmarks. However, investors continue to lap up FMCG, metals and pharma names.

Elsewhere in Asia, bourses in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Seoul and Tokyo ended in the red.

Stock exchanges in Europe were also trading on a negative note in mid-session deals.

Meanwhile, the global oil benchmark Brent crude was trading 0.58 per cent lower at USD 63.80 per barrel.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Domestic stock market indices, Sensex and Nifty ended over 1 per cent lower on Wednesday dragged by heavy selling in private banks and IT stocks amid mixed global cues.

Domestic stock market indices, Sensex and Nifty ended over 1 per cent lower on Wednesday dragged by heavy selling in private banks and IT stocks amid mixed global cues. The 30-share BSE index ended 627.43 points or 1.25 per cent lower at 49,509.15, and the broader NSE Nifty slumped 154.40 points or 1.04 per cent to 14,690.70. The HDFC duo was the top laggard in the Sensex pack, shedding nearly 4 per cent, followed by PowerGrid, Tech Mahindra, ICICI Bank, ONGC, Kotak Bank, Asian Paints, Infosys and Reliance Industries. On the other hand, ITC, Bajaj Finserv, HUL, SBI and TCS were among the gainers. "Domestic equities traded lower as concerns pertaining to a spike in COVID-19 cases and resultant restrictions continued to weigh on investors' sentiments,? said Binod Modi, Head - Strategy at Reliance Securities. Further, rise in US treasury yields and the strengthening dollar index aggravated concerns, he added. Financials, especially private banks, witnessed heavy profit-booking, which along with selling pressure in IT stocks dragged benchmarks. However, investors continue to lap up FMCG, metals and pharma names. Elsewhere in Asia, bourses in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Seoul and Tokyo ended in the red. Stock exchanges in Europe were also trading on a negative note in mid-session deals. Meanwhile, the global oil benchmark Brent crude was trading 0.58 per cent lower at USD 63.80 per barrel. (With inputs from agencies)

Sensex snaps 2-day gaining streak, falls 600 points, Nifty below 14,700