非税线下支付系统的后台清算业务支持___对账

客户所缴非税业务款项暂收我行清算中心内部户（非税收入业务暂收款），___日对账无误后将暂收款项划入财政子户，财政发送清算指令后将款项由财政子户划入财政结算账户。

非税业务退款需要___授权。

AE、客户风险测试评估有效期限是___。

本行对___岁以上（含）的客户进行风险评估时，将其风险承受能力上限限定为中级。

私人银行定制产品单笔投资金额原则上不低于（ ）万元，机构定制产品单笔投资金额原则上不低于___万元。

李明因工作忙，可以请其母亲代理办理的是___

单位客户购买理财时不需填定客户风险属性测试书，其风险承受能力默认为___

自2018年7月1日起，绍兴银行理财乐业务单笔金额由 提高至 万，单笔手续费率由 提高至 。___

我行客户申请变更理财签约账号可以通过___办理

柜面认购封闭式理财产品截止至募集期最后一天___

理财签约，一个客户（同一客户号）允许有___个签约账户。

风险评级为低风险、中低风险的理财产品，单一客户销售起点金额不得低于 （ ）万元人民币；风险评级为中风险、中高风险的理财产品，单一客户销售起点金额不得低于 （ ）万元人民币；风险评级为高风险的理财产品，单一客户销售起点不得低于（ ）万元人民币。___

理财产品(计划)包含的相关交易工具面临的风险不包括___

___是指客户通过理财规划所要实现的目标或满足的期望。

关于货币性理财产品，以下描述错误的是___

客户在柜面购买理财产品后，且该理财产品还尚未成立，可在（ ）对该笔认购进行撤销。___

理财门户代理贵金属业务的可交易品种不包括___

按照上海黄金交易所有关规定，客户上月(）日至本月（ ）日有贵金属库存积数时不能进行产品解约 ___

客户到我行开办贵金属代理业务的任意网点进行理财门户签约时支持采用身份证开户的结算账户不包括___

在办理理财门户签约时，《银银平台理财门户客户签约三方协议》的“兴业银行联”联同客户有效身份证复印件于（ ）交到总行个金部。___

客户在与上海黄金交易所结清全部费用和欠款，且当天无委托和成交纪录时，可申请进行贵金属产品解约。按照上海黄金交易所有关规定，客户上月（ ）日至本月（ ）日有贵金属库存积数时不能进行产品解约。___

个人客户与本行建立贵金属代理交易业务关系须符合的条件不包括___

客户在银银平台理财门户自主开户当日，可于___在柜面做“签约账户修改”交易。

基金投资人在开放日交易时间之外的申请，作为赎回申请的预受理，其基金份额申购价格按照___价格。

风险承担意愿取决于投资者的___。

下列关于混合型基金，说法错误的是___。

投资者可与每个约定的投资日期，___个工作日之后，通过“客户历史委托查询”查询定期定额申购交易发起情况。

投资人赎回的资金将在有效提交赎回之日起不超过___个工作日内，由我行划回其签约银行资金账户中。

系统自动对机构客户默认的风险评级为___

我行基金产品认购为（ ）赎回为（ ）___

开放式基金的买卖价格以___为基础。

保管箱换锁费的费用标准是多少？___

目前我行保险箱凿箱手续费为___元。

管箱逾期满___，租用人未办理续租或退租手续的，出租人可向公证机关申请公正凿箱，对箱内物品进行登记保管。所发生的一切费用（凿箱费、修缮费、箱匙赔偿费、公证费等）由租用人承担。

租用方逾期办理退租手续时，甲方将从合同到期次日开始按实际逾期天数计算收取逾期滞纳金。计算公式为___

保管箱的箱匙如有遗失或被窃，可以进行书面挂失，挂失有效期为___

保管箱保管年限不包含以下哪一项___

下列哪种版本的个人网上银行可以办理超限额设置？___

个人网银兰盾版跨行转账单日累计最高限额___

是 ___

在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

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?___