（ ）是指银行内部员工因过失没有按照雇佣合同、内部员工守则、相关业务及管理规定操作或者办理业务造成的风险。___

（ ）是指各类文件档案的制定、管理不善，包括不合适的或不健全的文档结构、协议中出现错误或缺乏协议等，历来是各银行加强关键流程控制的重点。___

（ ）是指银行为公司、个人、金融机构等客户提供的产品在业务管理框架、权利义务结构、风险管理要求等方面存在不完善、不健全等问题。___

（ ）是指银行结算支付系统失灵或延迟（如现金未及时送达营业网点或交易对方等）。___

（ ）是指在交易过程中，因未遵循操作规定导致交易和定价出现错误。___

（ ）是指第三方故意骗取、盗用财产或逃避法律。此类事件是银行损失最大、发生次数最多的操作风险之一。___

（ ）是指违法分子通过各种手段将非法所得合法化的行为。___

本国政府或银行海外机构所在地政府诞生新的立法、公共利益集团的持续压力/运动、极端组织的行动/蓄意破坏、政变/政府更替等事件给银行造成经济损失属于的风险种类是（ ）。___

（ ）是指银行未遵守金融监管当局的规定而可能造成的损失，在出台新的金融监管规定、金融监管加强、金融监管者发生改变、金融监管重点发生变化时，较易出现此方面的风险。___

（ ）是指由于外部供应商的过错而导致服务或供应中断或撤销而造成的损失，例如供电局拉闸限电、系统服务外包机构破产等。___

在一级操作风险原因分类中，不属于导致操作风险损失事件发生的内部原因的是（ ）。___

（ ）是在银行内部控制体系的基础上，通过开展全员风险识别，识别出全行经营管理中存在的风险点，并从影响程度和发生概率两个角度来评估操作风险的重要程度。___

信用风险中不同类型的操作风险具有各自具体的特性，难以用一种方法对各类操作风险进行准确的识别和计量体现在（ ）。___

除自然灾害、恐怖袭击等外部事件外，操作风险的风险因素很大比例上来源于银行的业务操作，属于银行的（ ）风险。___

下列可以体现操作风险差异性的是（ ）。___

下列操作风险属于系统缺陷的是（ ）。___

监管规定属于操作风险中的（ ）。___

（ ）是指操作风险所有人持续识别、评估并报告业务流程的操作风险及其控制状况的过程。___

不属于操作风险评估原则的是（ ）。___

操作风险评估中认评估对象、绘制流程图属于（ ）阶段。___

（ ）是在量化分析风险点分布、发生概率和损失程度的基础上，采用适当的缓释工具，限制、降低或分散操作风险。___

不属于操作风险风险缓释手段的是（ ）。___

（ ）是指为实现业务连续性而制订的各类规划及实施的各项流程。___

（ ）是我国银行最主要的业务种类之一，包括法人客户贷款业务、贴现业务、银行承兑汇票等业务。___

（ ）是国内银行竞相发展的零售银行业务，包括个人住房按揭贷款、个人大额耐用消费品贷款、个人生产经营贷款和个人质押贷款等业务品种。___

（ ）是指银行为满足客户保值或提高自身资金收益或防范市场风险等方面的需要，利用各种金融工具进行的资金和交易活动。___

（ ）是指对一个或多个操作风险敞口，通过反映操作风险发生可能性或影响度或某一控制有效性，对该风险或控制进行定性或定量跟踪监测的操作风险管理流程。___

监控工作要能够反映操作风险全局状况及变化趋势，揭示诱发操作风险的系统性原因，实现对全行操作风险状况的预警，反映了关键风险指标监控应遵循的（ ）原则。___

在高级计量法下，用于损失计量和验证的内部损失数据至少要有（ ）的观测期。___

（ ）可选择己经识别出来的主要操作风险因素，并结合银行的内、外部操作风险损失事件数据形成统计分析指标，用于评估银行整体的操作风险水平，该方法的难点在于对各项关键指标设定合理的阈值，即风险指标处于何种范围之内可以被认为是处于较低风险水平、中等风险水平或较高风险水平，并针对不同评估结果采取何种适当的风险控制措施。___

在统计操作风险损失事件时，要对损失金额较大和发生频率较高的操作风险损失事件进行重点审查和确认，要对重点地区、重要业务线及产品的操作风险损失事件进行认真识别和监测，反应的损失数据收集应遵循的原则是（ ）。___

应及时确认、完整记录、准确统计因操作风险事件导致的实际资产损失，避免因提前或延后造成当期统计数据不准确；对因操作风险损失事件带来的声誉影响，要及时分析和报告，但不要求量化损失，反应的损失数据收集应遵循的原则是（ ）。___

操作风险损失事件的统计标准、范围、程序和方法要保持一致，以确保统计结果客观、准确及可比，反应的损失数据收集应遵循的原则是（ ）。___

（ ）主要是填报单个损失事件的内容，对于每个损失事件，需要通过系统记录事件的事实情况、总体的财务损失金额以及逐笔损失、成本或挽回的明细信息。___

（ ）是一种自发的对风险、控制、风险防范手段的分析和评价，公开地讨论操作风险管理中的成效和不足，这一工具是银行识别、计量、分析操作风险的一种有效手段，被国际主流银行广泛采用。___

根据《银行资本管理办法（试行）》第（ ）的规定，'银行可采用基本指标法、标准法或高级计量法计量操作风险资本要求'。___

（ ）基本思路是：银行所持有的操作风险资本等于前三年总收入的平均值乘上一个固定比例（用α表示）。___

基本指标法基本思路是：银行所持有的操作风险资本等于（ ）总收入的平均值乘上一个固定比例（用α表示）。___

（ ）指将银行的所有业务划分为九条业务线，计算时需要获得每个业务条线的总收入，然后根据各条线不同的操作风险资本要求系数β，分别求出对应的资本，最后加总得到银行总体操作风险资本要求。___

银行采用标准法计量操作风险资本时，零售银行、资产管理和零售经纪业务条线的操作风险资本系数为（ ）。___

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

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___