Completely logical that you missed it. Like what appears customary in financial writing, the article has attempted to botch normal writing and has gone completely north on clarity by squeezing massive amounts of important sounding words in sentences which cause a shortfall of meaning. This is exacerbated by a scorching need of readers according to people familiar with the matter.
No offense, but it sounds like you are not a native English speaker and had difficulty interpreting the article. It's not very clearly written, but it's not as incomprehensible as you make it out to be.
maybe it's a formatting issue in my browser, but it was less than clear when it was the author talking, versus when he was quoting something. i had to bail. am i not giving the paper a fair shake?
Yeah, I get what they meant, it just felt out of place in the article. It's the first sentence in a section/paragraph, it just felt out of place and left me wondering if I missed something.
The sentence does appear to illustrate that neither the writer nor anyone who edited the story is close enough to the industry to understand some common terminology. It lowers my confidence in the publication’s analysis on related subjects.
I had to click into the article to understand the title of this post. Somehow the sentence structure of the post title didn't seem to make sense to me.
reply