2010最新版 证券业从业资格考试标准预测试卷·证券发行与承销 下载 pdf 电子版 epub 免费 txt 2025

《宏章出版·证券业从业资格考试标准预测试卷:证券发行与承销(2012最新版)》特点：紧扣大纲，权威编写，立足考试，体现重点，考点全面，命中率高，题量丰富，解析详尽。

证券业从业资格考试《证券发行与承销》标准预测试卷(一)

证券业从业资格考试《证券发行与承销》标准预测试卷(二)

证券业从业资格考试《证券发行与承销》标准预测试卷l三)

证券业从业资格考试《证券发行与承销》标准预测试卷(四)

证券业从业资格考试《证券发行与承销》标准预测试卷(五)

证券业从业资格考试《证券发行与承销》标准预测试卷(六)

证券业从业资格考试《证券发行与承销》标准预测试卷(七)

证券业从业资格考试《证券发行与承销》标准预测试卷(八)

证券业从业资格考试《证券发行与承销》标准预测试卷(九)

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

　　《证券发行与承销》考试大纲

目的与要求

本部分内容包括：证券经营机构的投资银行业务、股份有限公司概述、企业的股份制改组、公司融资、首次公开发行股票的准备和推荐核准程序、首次公开发行股票的操作、首次公开发行股票的信息披露、上市公司发行新股、上市公司发行可转换公司债券、债券的发行与承销、

外资股的发行、公司收购与资产重组等。

通过本部分的学习，要求掌握上述内容以及相应的法规政策。

章证券经营机构的投资银行业务

熟悉投资银行业的含义；了解国外资资银行业的发展历史；掌握我国投资银行业发展过程中发行监管制度的演变、股票发行方式的变化、股票发行定价的演变以及债券管理制度的发展。

了解证券公司的业务资格条件；掌握保荐机构和保荐代表人的资格条件；了解国债的承销业务资格、申报材料；了解企业债券的上市推荐业务资格。

掌握投资银行业务内部控制的总体要求；熟悉承销业务的风险控制；了解股票承销业务中的不当行为以及对不当行为的处罚措施。

了解投资银行业务的监管；熟悉核准制的特点；掌握证券发行上市保荐制度的内容；以及中国证监会对保荐机构和保荐代表人的监管；了解中国证监会对投资银行业务的非现场检查和现场检查。

第二章股份有限公司概述

熟悉股份有限公司设立的原则、方式、条件和程序；了解股份有限公司发起人的概念、资格及其法律地位；熟悉股份有限公司章程的性质、内容以及章程的修改；掌握股份有限公司与有限责任公司的差异、有限责任公司和股份有限公司的变更要求和变更程序。

掌握资本的含义、资本三原则、资本的增加和减少；熟悉股份的含义和特点、股份的分派、收购、设置和注销；了解公司债券的含义和特点。

　……

在线阅读地址：2010最新版 证券业从业资格考试标准预测试卷·证券发行与承销在线阅读

在线听书地址：2010最新版 证券业从业资格考试标准预测试卷·证券发行与承销在线收听

在线购买地址：2010最新版 证券业从业资格考试标准预测试卷·证券发行与承销在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书摘插图

书籍介绍

《宏章出版·证券业从业资格考试标准预测试卷:证券发行与承销(2012最新版)》特点：紧扣大纲，权威编写，立足考试，体现重点，考点全面，命中率高，题量丰富，解析详尽。

• 作者：芝麻为谁开门 发布时间：2022-01-30 04:05:45

  2022-012。是冥想引导的书，有录音的话，可以试试。

• 作者：保护羊 发布时间：2022-01-05 22:25:33

  纪尧姆.内里说抽DM的感觉和氮醉有些相似。想起在印度瓦拉纳西的那杯奶昔。四舍五入我也算氮醉过哇。其实特别想知道他在水下多少米尿的，大神没提。

• 作者：Missinggone 发布时间：2015-09-25 17:32:11

  这是她的第三本书，说实话跟之前差别不是很大，她的回答很多处在模棱两可的状态，没有很明确的回答，听起来更像是官方的感觉。可能是因为她本人处在比较高的能量状态，再去思考低的就会很概括化，那些对她来讲已经不是问题，两个不同状态交流确实有点困难。可以看出她本人在初期的时候也是列了非常详细的年计划月计划日计划的，这个是非常可行的，但很多人会因为缺乏足够的动力执行而被困在无力的状态，这个就无人能救了。总之还是很欣赏作者敢于打破限制相信直觉活出自己的态度，光是这一点，已让人十分羡艳了

• 作者：wltan 发布时间：2022-03-22 00:25:32

  书比较老，泛泛介绍些概念，用的技术是外企的，也有点旧，这么些年了也没看到突破。

• 作者：大黄力宏517 发布时间：2023-01-28 13:15:20

  一本菜谱日历

  看起来可太好吃啦啊

  三餐四季，蔬果有趣

  365道美味原创菜谱

  每天吃出新意

  328种时令风物食材科普

  感知四季流转

  24节气饮食指南，养出好身体

  12幅美食手绘，在涂色中治愈

  每种食材，都暗怀秘密

  让我们一起认识它们，品尝甜蜜的谜底

  翻开每一页

  都是好吃的

  比如夏至

  宜吃老北京炸酱面

  还会告诉你为啥

  茴香

  又叫香丝菜，可做蔬菜，调味料，香料

  通体辛香浓郁

  带着曼妙的回甘

• 作者：vanine 发布时间：2012-06-29 23:26:56

  补补历史知识

• 神奇的魔方世界

  作者：苏荷821 发布时间：2012-07-15 19:50:18

         小时候玩魔方的时候，总觉得它是那么的神奇，怎么扭转也到不了同一种颜色，恨不得拆开把相同的颜色拼凑到一起。长大后在电视上看到魔方高手只几秒的时间，就让每一面都服服贴贴的，真是厉害之极。不知道他们有什么诀窍。知道读了这本《魔方高手制霸技》才明白，原来玩魔方也是有技巧可询的。从本书中了解了一些专业名词，想三阶魔方，四阶，金字塔。而许老师独创的“8355”转发，更是让喜爱魔方的朋友如鱼得水。本书配有清晰的图片，附加精准的文字讲解，相信即使是新手朋友也会有所收获的，是喜欢魔方朋友的一本福音书啊。

• 转载一篇国外学者的书评的书评

  作者：benshuier 发布时间：2011-04-23 23:15:28

  原文网址

  http://www.froginawell.net/china/2006/04/review-of-timothy-brooks-collaboration/

  我没得到作者授权就私自拿来了...如果要引用的话请多加注意

  Review of Timothy Brook’s Collaboration

  Filed under: Books China-Japan English War— K. M. Lawson @ 7:33 pm Print

  In the most recent issue of The Journal of Asian Studies there is a review of Timothy Brook‘s new work Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China written by Susan Glosser. I was very disappointed with this review which, except for a few conciliatory lines in the beginning of the review, was very critical of Brook’s work. While I agree with Glosser on one or two points, I found her to be far too harsh, sometimes irrelevant (she complains that he does not offer a glossary with the Chinese names of all the organizations mentioned, but they can be found under the index entry for every organization) and in several instances clearly wrong in her assessment of the book, which I believe is a truly excellent contribution to the scholarship on Chinese collaboration during the occupation.

  Timothy Brook’s work is a careful look at the issues surrounding Chinese wartime collaboration through a close examination of a number of case studies from the Yangtze delta. With the exception of some work I have read in Japanese and some coming out of Taiwan, this is the most detailed source based research I have seen of this kind to date.

  Here I just want to contest three points in Glosser’s critique of Brook’s work that I think particularly unfair. She argues that 1) Brook doesn’t discuss the “problem of generalizing from one city to another.” 2) She complains about Brook’s allegedly unproblematized use of the word “pacification” (such as in referring to Japan’s “pacification teams.”) 3) Glosser spends almost a third of the review critiquing Brook’s “desire to avoid moral judgments” and his allegedly “neutral stance” on issue of Chinese collaboration.

  On the first count, Glosser is certainly correct in worrying about the generalization involved, but I think Brook is also well aware of the dangers and admirably avoids them in many places more adventurous scholars would not. He has already focused his study on only one area of occupied China, the Yangtze delta, and laments, in some detail, the paucity of available sources. He goes into considerable length to describe his sources and the various problems which accompany them in his opening chapter, even showing specific examples of the kinds of contradictions present and strategies he used. He works with Japanese sources (writings of the pacification team members), Chinese sources (such as memoirs), and Western sources (witnesses in Nanjing, for example) depending on their availability.

  I am more than satisfied by his explanation that, “I chose seven cities and counties across the Yangtze Delta for intensive study. This selection was not based on whether the sites were typical or unique (some would prove to be one, some the other, and some both), but only on whether the documentation was sufficiently dense to allow for a more than superficial portrait of what local people did in the face of military occupation…After the case studies were written, I chose to include in the book five that were sufficiently distinct in terms of the themes that the sources allowed me to explore…”1 and did not find any of his major claims to be based solely on individual findings in any one city or place. On the contrary, I imagine the accusation of generalization would be particularly offensive to Brook since he has urged the reader to try to overcome some of the stereotypes and classic images we have of the wartime collaborators and allow for the many different forms and levels of cooperation with the occupying forces, their varying motivations, costs, and ultimately levels of moral responsibility.

  Glosser for some reason takes issue with the fact that Brook uses the term “pacification teams” which is a direct translation of the Japanese term. She seems so concerned that we maintain a sufficiently condemnatory tone in our work on Japan’s activities in occupied China that this direct translation doesn’t seem to be sufficiently insidious. I find no issue with the fact that he calls these teams by the best English translation available (“pacification” is originally 宣撫, which in one of its two related definitions in Japanese specifically means to pacify a people in an occupied territory), especially since he does not, by this, ever try to hide the fact that the Japanese were guilty of horrible atrocities.

  She says that he uses the word “pacification” for “his own description of events (p. 134)” but I can’t find any use of that word on the page, for any purpose. Instead, page 134 makes use of another term which we are all familiar with, when he discusses Japanese “counterinsurgency operations” in Nanjing. It is on the same page where he notes Japanese military promises to offer “care for disarmed Chinese soldiers” even as they carried out a policy of executing captured soldiers in Nanjing and, at the bottom of that page tells of the summary execution of fifty policemen which had just been promised permission to operate after negotiations with Nanjing’s International Committee.

  Finally, Glosser seems to think that Brook has a “neutral stance” with respect to collaboration and wants to “avoid moral judgments.” I’m afraid this kind of comment shows that she has completely misread Brook’s careful argument. Perhaps she missed Brook’s simple request in his introduction that, “All I ask of the reader is to suspend judgment as to who is guilty for having worked with the Japanese until after we have seen them at work.”2 Brook wants to point out that the costs and consequences of collaboration, its form, and the motivations are all very much tied up in the contingencies of specific situations. Also, he reminds us that, “Ambiguity of intention is only half the problem. There is also the ambiguity of unknowable consequences.”3 He is “neutral” to collaboration in one important respect: the word “collaboration” is already a morally loaded word, and I think he would argue that without some special care, this can get in the way of any interesting and productive look at the interactions between Chinese and Japanese during the war.

  I think Glosser fundamentally misunderstands Brook when she protests his claim that “history does not fashion moral subjects, nor produce moral knowledge.” I completely agree with her when she says that, “All histories [are] embedded in an ethical view of the world.”4 However, I’m not sure how Brook is to be understood as denying this. Brook admits how his own “ethical view of the world” has affected his description of some of the historical figures he describes in the book. On the very same page as his comment about moral knowledge, he has this to say, “Without question, many of [the choices of collaborators] were venal in inspiration and destructive in impact, and the historian is not disqualified from documenting that venality or tracking the damage these choices led to and declaring them to be damaging. I have found it impossible to suspend my personal distaste for some of the characters who appear in this book, and it would be facetious to suggest that the reader should, particularly when the consequences of collaboration were as stark as they were in a place like Nanjing.” I think what Brook, who it might be noted collected and edited the important Documents on the Rape of Nanking (1999), wants to argue for is a more careful consideration of some of the “inconvenient facts” that produce a more complex picture – a complexity that we must face if we are to have any chance at understanding the kinds of choices faced by individuals every day in extreme times. It is because of some of these ambiguities that we cannot “deduce the causes that prompted people to act from the moral claims we impose, nor evaluate their actions solely in relation to consequences the actors could not anticipate.”5 This is as true for collaborators with the Japanese occupation regime as it is with anyone who collaborated with Chinese Communist regime in its most violent hour, and as it is for the daily choices of policemen, soldiers and government officials of an occupied Iraq today. An analytic calculus of atrocity and the clarity of hindsight does not help us in the least in understanding the people thrust into extreme positions during times such as war, occupation, imperial domination, or under highly repressive governments — or for that matter the choices they faced.

  1. Timothy Brook Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 26-27.

  2. ibid. 13.

  3. ibid. 241.

  4. Susan Glossar review of Brook’s book in Journal of Asian Studies vol. 65 no. 1, 149