对已核销不良资产实行账销案存的管理方式。视同表内资产对待，不因贷款核销而豁免债务人的偿债义务。

由于国家宏观政策调整等原因致使债务人经营困难，不能按期归还贷款，且担保人无代偿能力的，不得进行债务重组

依据相关法律法规的规定或经法院裁定，由具有代偿义务的第三人承接债务人（担保人）债务的，但债务承接人暂不具备全额偿还能力的，农商行可以与债务承接人约定新增授信等附加条件。

无法定代偿义务的第三人自愿承接债务的，应当由债务承接人与原债务人达成《债务转让协议》，并经农商行同意，债务承接人以受让原贷款抵（质）押物作为附加条件的，农商行应当确保原抵（质）押权不丧失。

依据相关法律法规的规定或经法院裁定，由具有代偿义务的第三人承接债务人（担保人）债务的，农商银行可以与债务承接人另行约定新增授信等附加条件。

农户、个体工商户等自然类不良贷款的债务重组，可以经农商银行有权决策人授权后简化程序办理，无须经过不良资产管理委员会审议。

已核销不良资产纳入责任清收范围，统一清收处置标准，以现金清收为主，其他方式为辅。

核销不良资产实行严格保密制度。不得向任何机构和部门披露有关核销资产的任何信息。

根据《关于规范资产置换不良贷款工作的意见》规定，在资产置换不良贷款过程中，预计置入资产两年内无法处置变现的，确定意向后必须先向当地银监局和省联社汇报。未经同意，不得进行资产置换。

根据《关于规范资产置换不良贷款工作的意见》规定，对通过资产置换置入的资产两年内难以处置变现的，要根据实际经营状况、未来业务发展情况以及置入资产可能形成的减值等，合理确定置入资产的摊销年限，但最长不得超过省联社规定的年限。

根据《关于规范资产置换不良贷款工作的意见》规定，对通过资产置换方式置入的土地等资产进行严格把关，严禁将权属不明、纠纷未决等有瑕疵的资产置入。

根据《山东省农村信用社不良资产推介管理暂行办法》规定，对拟推介资产进行尽职调查时，应采取查阅资产档案、询问资产经办人、实地调查资产等方式，不得委托中介机构进行调查。

根据《山东省农村信用社不良资产推介管理暂行办法》规定，不良资产推介信息包括：资产编号、项目名称、资产构成、资产状况、联系人及联系电话等，信息中不包括资产瑕疵。

根据《山东省农村信用社不良资产推介管理暂行办法》规定，利用平面媒体、电子媒体等进行推介招商的，应当尽量大面积、集中披露不良资产信息，做到有序推介，减少推介成本。

根据《山东省农村信用社不良资产推介管理暂行办法》规定，不良资产推介过程中，对于地域性和专业性较强的资产，要向具有地缘优势和专业优势的客户重点推介。

根据《山东省农村信用社不良资产诉讼管理办法》规定，农商银行资产管理部门负责人要根据诉讼台账和档案记录情况，至少每季对辖内的未执结案件进行一次全面排查。

根据《山东省农村信用社不良资产诉讼管理办法》规定，在不良资产诉讼授权决策时，决策人对不良资产管理委员会表决同意起诉的结果可以否决。

根据《关于不良贷款诉讼时效的法律指导意见》规定，债务人下落不明或拒绝签收《逾期贷款催收通知书》，农商银行可以委托当地公证机关进行公证催收。

根据《关于不良贷款诉讼时效的法律指导意见》规定，债务人涉嫌违法犯罪，农商银行向公检法报案或控告的，诉讼时效中断。刑事案件审理完毕刑事判决文书生效之日起，诉讼时效期间重新计算。

根据《关于不良贷款诉讼时效的法律指导意见》规定，因在保证期间内未要求保证人承担保证责任，造成保证责任灭失的，农商银行可以通过向保证人发出《保证人继续履行担保责任通知书》，由保证人签字认可来重新确定保证关系。

根据《山东省农村商业银行资产经营中心管理暂行办法》规定，资产经营中心的其他费用采取一次性核定模式列支，超额部分自担，但不允许与清收成果挂钩。

根据《山东省农村信用社不良资产处置定价管理暂行办法》不良资产处置定价实行授权决策制度，农商银行董事会应根据《章程》，结合当地实际，确定不良资产处置权限，并进行口头授权，在授权范围内进行定价决策。

根据《山东省农村信用社不良资产处置定价管理暂行办法》规定，决策人在授权范围内，有权决策不良资产管理委员会审议通过的定价，也可自行加价或减价。

根据《山东省农村信用社不良资产处置定价管理暂行办法》规定，专家判断法是指由业务领导或业务骨干，根据其多年的实践经验，结合已掌握的拟处置资产的实际情况，对债权价值和价值可实现程度进行估算的方法。

根据《山东省农村信用社不良资产处置定价管理暂行办法》规定，农商银行不良资产处置定价小组组织人员对定价分析报告进行研究，以不记名投票的方式进行定价表决。

法人机构按照“专职队伍、专业清收、专项考核”的要求，可单独或在资产管理部门下设资产经营中心，对不良贷款实行集中管理,具体负责清收处置工作。

不良资产管理委员会由行长、分管行长及资产管理、信贷管理、监察、审计、合规、财务会计等部门主要负责人组成

集中管理不良贷款不能在二个月内移交的，经不良资产管理委员会批准，可适当延迟移交

估值是在尽职调查的基础上，按照规定的程序和方法，对不良贷款某一时点的价值进行内部估算的过程。

农商银行主要负责人对本行不良资产管理处置尽职情况负有领导管理责任，并对不良资产工作人员的不尽职行为负有领导管理责任。

公司类贷款出现风险状况或被认定为不良后三个月内，农商行拟采取账户扣收和直接催收以外的其他方式进行处置的，应当经过集体研究逐笔（户）制定处置预案，明确清收处置责任人，及时启动清收处置工作程序。

不良贷款管理是指为了减少贷款损失，降低信用风险，根据不良贷款特点，对不良贷款移交、日常管理、清收处置、监测、检查等各个环节进行的全过程管理。

不良贷款原则上应全部集中管理，小额个人类不良贷款也可采取集中与分散相结合的管理处置方式。

对不良贷款管理及相应调查、催收、诉讼、清收处置等形成的纸质资料还应按户扫描，建立电子档案，及时入档保存。

资产查控是依据不良贷款五级分类认定结果，以借款人某一时点的不良贷款为基数，对不良贷款进行全面调查，掌握还款义务人的主体资格、有效资产和偿债能力，摸清不良贷款现状，揭示不良贷款清收潜力。

呆账核销应提供符合呆账认定条件的确凿证据，并严格执行保密制度，呆账核销后的不良贷款不用再继续追索。

不良资产工作人员可以从事资产定价、资产处置和相关审核审批工作。

新增不良贷款在进行责任追究前，贷款管理单位与资产管理部门可办理交接手续，并纳入信贷与不良资产管理系统。

基层支行与资产管理部门应共同对拟集中管理处置不良资产的现时状况进行调查，以真实、全面地反映不良资产价值和风险。

农商银行要定期对本机构不良资产处置尽职情况进行监督检查或组织专项审计，发现违规操作和不尽职行为要及时纠正。

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___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___

下列人生态度中正确的是___

下列属于正确的人生目的的是___

___认为,金钱可以主宰一切.

___ 认为，社会和他人是达到个人目的的手段。

___认为，人生的全部内容就在于满足感官的需求与快乐。

马克思对于人的本质的论断确立与___

人与自然关系的实质是___

在社会交往和公共生活中公民应该遵守的道德准则是___

社会公德最基本的要求是___

通过其规定和实施，影响人们思想，培养和提高人们法律意识，引导人们依法行为的作用是法律的___

有序的公共生活是构建和谐社会的___

一行人在过路口时迎面遇到红灯，看到近处没有车辆便径直通过。他这样做是___

任何一个社会成员，无论具有何种身份、职业和地位，都必须在公共生活中遵守社会公德。这体现了社会公德具有的___特点。

影响公共生活、公共秩序、文明礼貌、清洁卫生以及其他影响社会生活的最主要行为规范是___

《公民道德建设实施纲要》明确指出，社会公德涵盖了___

为调整和规范人类社会生活三大领域，相应分别形成了___

公共生活中的道德和___所追求的目标是一致的，都是通过规范人们的行为来维护公共生活中的秩序，实现社会稳定和经济发展。