When European Union (EU) leaders took delivery of Europe’s first draft of a constitution at a summit in Greece last June, it was with almost universal praise. There was wide agreement that the text could save the EU from paralysis once it expands from 15 to 25 members next year. It would give Europe a more stable leadership and greater clout on the world stage, said the chairman of the Convention which drafted the agreement, former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing. Such praise was too good to last. As the product of a unique 16-month public debate, the draft has become a battleground. Less than four months after it was delivered, the same leaders who accepted it opened the second round of talks on its content this week by trading veiled threats to block agreement or cut off funds if they don’t get their way. The tone was polite, but unyielding. In a bland joint statement issued when the talks opened on October 4, the leaders stressed the constitution, "represents a vital step in the process aimed at making Europe more cohesive, more democratic and closer to its citizens. "Sharp differences remain, though, between member countries of the EU over voting rights, the size and composition of the executive European Commission, defense co-operation and the role of religion in the new constitution. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s hopes of wrapping up a deal on the constitution by Christmas seem far from being realized. While the six founding members of the EU--Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg--plus Britain and Denmark, want as little change as possible to the draft, the 10 mainly central European countries due to join the 15-nation bloc next year want to alter the institution’s balance. Such small states are afraid their views will be ignored under the constitution and are determined to defend the disproportionate voting rights they won at the 2000 Nice Summit. EU experts fear such sharp differences will create exactly the paralysis in the EU the Convention was established to avoid.
A．turning EU into a super power in the world’s economy.B．serving the interest of the 10 nations planning to come aboard.C．building a better election system for excellent leadership.D．preventing EU from ineffectiveness due to its expansion.
点击查看答案
When Robert Shiller, a Yale economist and bestselling author, told a crowd of finance professors and economics students last spring that only 10 percent of his money was invested in stocks, they gasped. Managers might suggest anywhere from 50 to 90 percent. But 10 percent This was heresy. How about 0 percent That’s the share that investors should plow into domestic stocks, according to Ben Inker, director of asset allocation for Grantham, Mayo, and Van Otterloo & Co. (GMO), a money-management firm with some $85 billion in assets. Welcome to a contrarian view of today’s equity markets. A small but vocal band of heretics is calling into question not only the profit potential of stocks but also the foundation for conventional wisdom about investing. Even for those who disagree with them, their arguments serve as a reality check for the market. Are conventional portfolios really as safe as experts say "Don’t be surprised that the Wall Street brokerage firms spend most of their time telling you that stocks are cheap," warns Mr. Inker. "Wall Street likes the market. It likes trading. Wall Street makes a lot more money off of trading stocks than trading bonds." The trick is to determine your portfolio’s exposure to risk, analysts say. And that depends to a surprisingly large degree-on how diversified it is and how long you’re prepared to stay the course. These are key elements of "modern portfolio theory,", which came into being in the 1950s and eventually won its creator, Harry Markowitz, a Nobel Prize. Essentially, portfolio theory holds that investors reap the greatest return with the least risk when they allocate their money among diverse classes of assets, hold them for the long term, and rebalance the portfolio when the various classes of assets stray too far from their original allocation. To make it work, you need to own asset classes that don’t move in lock step, make accurate estimates of their future returns, and use a very long time horizon. A miscalculation in even one of these steps, however, can seriously hurt the prospects for reaching your ultimate goal. "The long-term nature is the driving force of the portfolio," says Jerry Korabik, vice president of Ibbotson Associates, a Chicago-based asset allocation adviser. "All of our clients are institutions, and we develop portfolios with 10-, 20-, even 30-year time horizons." Riding the roller coaster Thus, investors should never try to get in and out of the market at specific times, the theory holds. Instead, they should ride the inevitable ebb and flow of prices. If they have allocated their money correctly, some portion of their portfolio will almost always be making money. By rebalancing their portfolios periodically-selling off some of the winning asset classes and buying more of the losers- they are continually buying low and selling high, at least in a relative sense. This buy-and-hold strategy has won over hordes of investors. The average Fidelity retirement account has nearly 60 percent of its money in stocks, a recent study found. The overall average for retirement accounts: 61 percent, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Even equity allocations for college and university endowments hover around 57.1 percent, says the National Association of College and University Business Officers. The problem is that investors sometimes have to be extraordinarily patient for the strategy to pay off. In 1981, for example, the S&P 500 Index stood at the same level it first achieved in 1965. Today, the index is about 30 percent lower than its peak in 2000. Do investors really have to put up with such long periods of losses Profits of impatience No, say a small contingent of money managers. By avoiding the stock market as their primary engine for profit during the past five years, several of these managers have posted good returns. Take the Permanent Portfolio Fund. Unlike many balanced funds, which diversify primarily between stocks and bonds, it encompasses a much wider variety of assets: 20 percent gold bullion and coins, 5 percent silver bullion and coins, 10 percent Swiss franc denominated assets (typically Swiss government bonds), 15 percent US and foreign real estate and natural-resource company stocks, 15 percent aggressive-growth stocks, and 35 percent in dollar assets (Treasury securities in varying maturities and also short-term, high-grade bonds). Over the past five years, while the S&P 500 has slipped backward, the Permanent Portfolio Fund has averaged a startling 10.1 percent growth per year. "We don’t correlate to any index because we own different assets," says the fund’s manager, Michael Cuggino. "In markets where stocks and equities are going sideways or down, we perform very well because our diversification is much broader. If equities go gangbusters like in the 90s, clearly we are going to underperform because we won’t be totally in stocks." Indeed, the fund lagged significantly during the boom years of the 1990s, causing average annual returns for the decade to trail the S&P 500 by four percentage points.
A．the 1990s saw a booming stock marketB．"We" underperformed during the 1990sC．"We" are not totally in stocksD．"We" will change our course of action
点击查看答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
参考答案
十点题库官方参考答案
（由十点题库聘请的专业题库老师提供的解答）
