【多选题】
关于个人外汇现钞管理说法正确的有___
A. 以外币现金形式存入的外币账户是现钞账户
B. 个人存入外币现钞当日累计等值5000美元(含5000美元)以下的,可以在银行直接办理
C. 个人提取外币现钞当日累计等值5000美元以下(含5000美元)的凭本人有效身份证件办理
D. 外币个人通知存款的每笔起存金额和最低支取金额均为5000美元或等值外币,只有七天通知期限
查看试卷,进入试卷练习
微信扫一扫,开始刷题

答案
ABD
解析
暂无解析
相关试题
【多选题】
我行开办个人外汇业务的币种暂定为___,在本行系统中的货币代码为( )。
A. 港币、货币符号 HKD
B. 美元、货币符号 USD
C. 日元、货币符号 JPY
D. 欧元、货币符号
E. UR
【多选题】
王先生于2015年5月1日在我行存了5万元的金兰保产品,2016年2月1日前来销户,那么应如何计息___
A. 存入日活期利率
B. 销户日获取利率
C. 三个月
D. 六个月
【多选题】
关于金兰保利息入账账号维护,以下说法正确的有___
A. 客户必须提供有效身份证件,可以代理
B. 柜员需审核客户提供的“金兰保”定期存单信息,是否真实、完整
C. 客户需提供新绑定账户的相关凭证
D. 客户需填写《个人客户综合变更申请表》
【多选题】
关于金兰保业务描述正确的是___
A. 利息入账账号可维护,但客户必须提供有效身份证件,不可代理,仅本人可办理
B. 客户需提供新绑定账户的相关凭证(磁条卡、IC卡、存折),且只能绑定本人名下的账户
C. 若客户为转账销户,需提供入账账户凭证(卡、存折),且户名一致
D. 金兰保密码当日累计输错五次密码将锁定,必须做密码挂失
【多选题】
关于金兰保说法正确的有___
A. “金兰保”是个人定期储蓄存款
B. 每年付息、靠档计息,支取灵活,存款利息相对较高
C. 金兰保支持部分提前支取,靠档计息
D. 金兰保到期不自动转存
【多选题】
以下关于“金兰保”产品说法正确的有___
A. 如有需要,客户本人可以到开户网点凭本人身份证修改密码
B. 申请人办理“金兰保”产品时,需绑定在我行开立的个人结算账户用于每年利息入账
C. 金兰保”产品需本人带身份证到绍兴银行任一网点办理,不得代办
D. “金兰保”产品期满后逾期部分按照支取日挂牌公告的活期储蓄存款利率计息
【多选题】
金利保产品,单笔起步点为___元,按照()元整数倍递增,存期()年。
A. 10000,10000,1
B. 1000,1000,1
C. 10000,1000,1
D. 1000,10000,6
【多选题】
金利保如何靠档计息?(T表示天数)___
A. 1天≤T<7天,1天通知存款,支取日基准利率上浮25%
B. 7天≤T<3个月,7天通知存款,支取日基准利率上浮25%
C. 3个月≤T<6个月,3个月整存整取,支取日基准利率上浮40%
D. 6个月≤T<1年,6个月整存整取,支取日基准利率上浮40%
E. T=1年,1年整存整取,支取日基准利率上浮40%
F. T>1年,1年整存整取,1年的部分按开户日基准利率上浮40%,超过1年的部分按支取日挂牌公告的活期储蓄存款利率
【多选题】
柜员为客户办理销户业务,下列哪项说法是正确的___
A. 客户必须提供有效身份证件
B. 柜员需审核存单关键信息是否完整、存单是否真实有效
C. 存款日期大于1天且小于7天,通知日期为销户当日的前一天
D. 存款日期大于等于七天且小于3个月,则通知日期为销户当日的七天前
【多选题】
关于金利保说法正确的有___
A. “金利保”是一款1年期的人民币个人定期存款产品
B. “金利保”单笔起存点为1万元,按照1万整数倍数递增
C. 金兰保支持全额提前支取,不支持部分提前支取,靠档计息;到期不自动转存
D. 某客户从2016年7月1日存入金利保,于2016年7月5日销户,该执行利为支取日当天的央行一天通知存款利率上浮25%
【多选题】
定存冠提前支取的计息方法为___
A. 应付利息=持有存单本金×起息日(含)至提前支取日(含)实际天数×靠档利率÷360
B. 应付利息=持有存单本金×起息日(含)至提前支取日(含)实际天数×靠档利率÷365
C. 应付利息=持有存单本金×起息日(含)至提前支取日(不含)实际天数×靠档利率÷360
D. 应付利息=持有存单本金×起息日(含)至提前支取日(不含)实际天数×靠档利率÷365
【多选题】
定存冠8号、9号、10号、11号产品的认购金额起点分别为___
A. 1万、1万、5万、10万
B. 1万、1万、5万、5万
C. 5万、5万、10万、10万
D. 2万、2万、5万、10万
【多选题】
“定存冠”产品,___,到期后 ( )。如逾期支取,逾期天数按支取日我行对外挂牌公告的活期利率计息。
A. 支持部分提前支取, 自动转存
B. 不支持部分提前支取,不自动转存
C. 支持部分提前支取,不自动转存
D. 不支持部分提前支取,自动转存
【多选题】
“定存冠”客户开户或销户申请都可委托代理人办理,代理人办理时须提供___,并按照我行相关业务管理规定执行。
A. 代理人有效身份证件
B. 被代理人有效身份证件
C. 代理人、被代理人有效身份证件
D. 被代理人有效身份证件、书面授权书
【多选题】
对“定存冠"的描述正确的为___
A. 开户交易完成后,系统自动从申请人账户内扣除申请金额
B. 销户交易完成后其本金与利息会自动划转到原开户时存款转出的银行账户内
C. “定存冠”产品支持部分提前支取,到期后不自动转存
D. “定存冠”存单可以办理质押,根据我行相关定期存单质押的有关规定办理,质押期限不得大于存单到期日
推荐试题
【单选题】
量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___
A. 事物内部各部分之间变化的不平衡性
B. 事物整体与某些构成部分之间变化的不平衡性
C. 事物与事物之间变化的不平衡性
D. 事物的本质属性与非本质属性之间变化的不平衡性
【单选题】
量变中的局部性部分质变是___
A. 事物的本质属性与非本质属性之间变化不平衡性的表现
B. 事物的各个部分之间变化不平衡性的表现
C. 事物的内部矛盾和外部条件变化不平衡性的表现
D. 事物的量和质变化不平衡性的表现
【单选题】
否定之否定规律___
A. 在事物完成一个发展周期时才能完整地表现出来
B. 在事物发展过程中任何一点上都可以表现出来
C. 在事物经过量变和质变两种状态后表现出来
D. 在事物发展过程中经过肯定和否定两个阶段表现出来
【单选题】
事物发展的周期性体现了___
A. 事物发展的直线性与曲折性的统一
B. 事物发展是一个不断地回到出发点的运动
C. 事物发展的周而复始的循环性
D. 事物发展的前进性和曲折性的统一
【单选题】
直线论的错误在于只看到___
A. 事物发展的周期性而否认了前进性
B. 事物发展的前进性而否认了曲折性
C. 事物发展的间接性而否认了连续性
D. 事物发展的曲折性而否认了周期性
【单选题】
循环论的错误在于___
A. 只看到事物发展的普遍性,没有看到事物发展过程的特殊性
B. 只看到事物的绝对运动,没有看到事物的相对静止
C. 只看到事物发展道路的曲折性,没有看到事物发展趋势的前进性
D. 只看到新旧事物之间的连续性,没有看到新旧事物之间的间断性
【单选题】
辩证法所说的矛盾是指___
A. 人们思维中的前后不一的自相矛盾
B. 事物之间或事物内部各要素之间的对立统一
C. 对立面之间的相互排斥
D. 事物之间或事物内部各要素之间的相互依赖
【单选题】
依据是___
A. 矛盾的同一性和斗争性辩证关系的原理
B. 矛盾的普遍性和特殊性辩证关系的原理
C. 事物发展的量变和质变辩证关系的原理
D. 事物发展的内因和外因辩证关系的原理
【单选题】
矛盾问题的精髓是___
A. 矛盾的普遍性和特殊性关系的问题
B. 矛盾的同一性和斗争性关系的问题
C. 主要矛盾和次要矛盾关系的问题
D. 矛盾的主要方面和次要方面关系的问题
【单选题】
真象和假象的区别在于___
A. 真象是客观的,假象是主观的
B. 真象表现本质,假象不表现本质
C. 真象深藏于事物内部,假象外露于事物外部
D. 真象从正面直接地表现本质,假象从反面歪曲地表现本质
【单选题】
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___
A. 辩证唯物主义决定论的观点
B. 形而上学的机械决定论的观点
C. 唯心主义非决定论的观点
D. 庸俗唯物主义的观点
【单选题】
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?___
A. It is based on questionable statistics.
B. It reflects the economic changes.
C. It evidences the improved welfare.
D. It provides much food for thought.
【单选题】
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?___
A. It is widely used to compare the economic growth across countries.
B. It revolutionizes the way of measuring ordinary people’s livelihood.
C. It focuses on people’s consumption rather that their average income.
D. It is a more comprehensive measure of people’s economic well-being.
【单选题】
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?___
A. It reflected the existing big gap between the two economies.
B. It neglected many important indicators of people’s welfare.
C. It covered up the differences between individual citizens.
D. It failed to count in their difference in natural resources.
【单选题】
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?___
A. It can accurately pinpoint a country’s current economic problems.
B. It can help to raise people’s awareness of their economic well-being.
C. It can diagnose the causes of a country’s slowing pace of economic improvement.
D. It can compare a country’s economic conditions between different periods of time.
【单选题】
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?___
A. It is much better than that of their European counterparts.
B. It has been on the decline ever since the turn of the century.
C. It has not improved as much as reported by the Census Bureau.
D. It has not been accurately assessed and reported since mid-2000s.
【单选题】
大学生的成才目标是___。
A. 培养德智体美全面发展的人才
B. 培养德智体美全面发展的社会主义建设者
C. 培养德智体美全面发展的社会主义建设者和接班人
D. 培养专业化、创新化的人才