尽职免责调查结束后，应当形成相应的尽职评议报告。报告主要内容应包括具体授信业务办理情况和业务各环节工作人员履行职责情况，并应对被评议人是否尽职给出明确的评议结论。评议结论可分为＿＿＿类。___

违法持有多家金融机构股权；为大股东融资进行对外投资；以贷款、()计划等形式为实际关联方提供资金用于股权投资或兼并重组等。___

未经批准擅自设立分支机构、网点，包括异地事业部、业务部、（）和业务中心、客户中心及其分部、分中心；未经批准设立境内外代表处、办事处；分支机构或专营机构超法定范围开展业务等。___

银行公司治理要按照法律规章建立（）、董事会、高管层、监事会各司其职、各尽其责与有效协调的规则___

银行监事会要对绩效考评的（）进行监督___

银行内部授权、授信制度要充分体现分支机构、不同业务的（）性；并表管理制度需确保会计并表、业务并表、风险并表、信息系统并表、数据并表等。___

银行要对投资者（）性测试才可销售产品___

银行员工假借本机构名义谋私利而形成风险，在客户要求赔偿但责任未分清的情况下，不得（），声明其行为与本机构无关。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强银行业金融机构境外运营风险管理的通知》（银监发〔2016〕5号）规定，银行业金融机构开展境外业务要加强与保险业的合作，在充分考虑客户和项目风险的基础上，合理发挥出口信用保险等政策性保险功能，积极引入 ，提升“走出去”综合金融服务水平。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强银行业金融机构境外运营风险管理的通知》（银监发〔2016〕5号）规定，银行业金融机构应强化应强化境外机构的高管人员和关键岗位轮岗制度，明确轮岗时间和具体安排；加强对 岗位人员的离岗审计，严格对离岗审计发现问题的责任追究。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强银行业金融机构境外运营风险管理的通知》（银监发〔2016〕5号）规定，银行业金融机构应根据自身业务特点、规模和复杂程度，结合总体业务发展战略、管理能力和能够承担的风险水平， 开展自营性境外投资类业务，充分考虑投资对象和项目风险、所在国际或地区的经济金融形势变化和市场波动带来的潜在风险。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强银行业金融机构境外运营风险管理的通知》（银监发〔2016〕5号）规定，银行业金融机构在开展境外业务时，对于尚未设立境外分支机构的国家或地区，主要运营责任应由 承担，相关业务应在满足 监管要求的基础上更侧重于满足 监管要求。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强银行业金融机构境外运营风险管理的通知》（银监发〔2016〕5号）规定，银行业金融机构在开展股权类投资境外业务时，对于属于并表范围的股权类投资应经 审议，并全面评估投资损失可能对银行集团产生的影响。___

根据《中国银监会关于进一步加强银行业金融机构境外运营风险管理的通知》（银监发〔2016〕5号）规定，银行业金融机构在开展境外业务时，要落实贷款“三查”要求， 对授信项目进行贷后检查，持续监测资金流向与用途。___

按照《银行业金融机构全面风险管理指引》规定，银行业金融机构应当制定清晰的风险管理策略，至少多长时间评估一次其有效性。___

按照《银行业金融机构全面风险管理指引》规定，银行业金融机构应当对风险偏好至少多长时间进行一次评估。___

按照《银行业金融机构全面风险管理指引》规定，银行业金融机构应当至少多长时间报送全面风险管理报告。___

按照《银行业金融机构全面风险管理指引》规定，银行业金融机构全面风险管理应当遵循四个基本原则，以下哪个不属于基本原则。___

按照《银行业金融机构全面风险管理指引》规定，银行业金融机构的哪个组织应当履行建立风险文化职责？___

按照《银行业金融机构全面风险管理指引》规定，银行业金融机构聘任风险总监（首席风险官）由哪个组织决定。___

按照《银行业金融机构全面风险管理指引》规定，以下哪个职责不属于董事会？___

按照《银行业金融机构全面风险管理指引》规定，以下哪个职责不属于高级管理层？___

按照《银行业金融机构全面风险管理指引》规定，以下哪个不属于银行业金融机构风险偏好的制定内容？___

按照《银行业金融机构全面风险管理指引》规定，以下哪个不属于银行业金融机构风险管理政策和程序的制定内容？___

根据中国银监会办公厅关于银行业金融机构客户个人信息泄露案件风险提示的通知（银监办发〔2016〕156号）规定，银行业金融机构要积极落实案件（风险）信息报送和登记有关制度要求，对员工涉嫌侵犯客户个人信息被公安机关立案侦查的案件，严格按照（）类案件填报。___

根据中国银监会办公厅关于银行业金融机构客户个人信息泄露案件风险提示的通知（银监办发〔2016〕156号）规定，银行业金融机构要牢固树立全员 意识，进一步加强员工教育与外包行为管理，强化信息安全建设，强化内部监督，建立完善客户个人信息保护长效机制。___

根据中国银监会办公厅关于银行业金融机构客户个人信息泄露案件风险提示的通知（银监办发〔2016〕156号）规定，银行业金融机构要充分认识保护客户个人信息安全工作的重要意义，切实落实（）责任，完善客户个人信息保护制度建设，强化执行管理。___

对集团客户授信总额超过资本净额（ ）或单一客户授信总额超过资本净额（ ）的，应视为大额风险暴露，其授信应由董事会或高级管理层审批决定。___

对借助通道转出但信用风险仍保留在原机构的资产，须按（ ）形态进行分类。___

在全面覆盖各类授信业务的基础上，银行业金融机构应确定单一法人客户、集团客户以及地区、行业的综合授信限额。综合授信限额应包括（ ）。___

银行业金融机构应根据本机构业务特点，建立信用风险缓释制度、政策和程序，定期对风险缓释措施（ ）进行评估。___

应重点评估抵质押权利的真实性、合法性和（ ），抵质押物价值评估的审慎性。___

应根据抵质押物的类别和性质，科学确定抵押物加之重估的频率，（ ）进行重估。___

存在经济关联性是指另一方的倒闭将很可能对另一方的清偿能力造成重大负面影响的情形，不包括：（ ）。___

只有符合所有逾期的本金、利息及其他欠款已全部偿还，并至少在随后连续（ ）个还款期或（ ）个月内（按两者孰长的原则确定）正常还本付息，且预计之后也能按照合同条款持续还款的不良贷款，才能上调为非不良贷款。___

按照《中国银监会关于银行业风险防控工作的指导意见》规定,各级监管机构要重点关注逾期_____天以上贷款和不良贷款比例超过_____、关注类贷款占比较高或增长较快、类信贷及表外资产增长过快的银行业金融机构。___

按照《中国银监会关于银行业风险防控工作的指导意见》规定,银行业金融机构要加强向央行的报告沟通，运用_____等工具，满足流动性需求。___

按照《中国银监会关于银行业风险防控工作的指导意见》规定,银行业金融机构要坚持穿透管理和_____的原则，将债券投资纳入统一授信。___

按照《中国银监会关于银行业风险防控工作的指导意见》规定,同业业务应由银行业金融机构总部统一管理、_____。___

按照《中国银监会关于银行业风险防控工作的指导意见》规定,银行业金融机构应当按照_____，严格区分公募与私募、批发与零售、自营与代客等不同产品类型， 充分披露产品信息和揭示风险，将投资者分层管理落到实处。___

量变的复杂性是指___

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想