The English Language

[sNaKeBiTe]

Hey guys,

I'm working on my bachelor thesis right now and about 95% of the literature I have is in english. While I understand pretty much all of it, yesterday I stumbled on something that I just couldn't figure out and I thought some of you native speakers could probably help me out.

In other words, for a variety of reasons, the financial system is seen as initially vulnerable; suddenly, a shock occurs, which is then amplified by the endogenous response of market participants. There is no role for the factors underlying the build-up of the vulnerability in the first place. Finally, in many models, structurally illiquid portfolios are the key source of vulnerability and amplification. Liquid liabilities, and the threat of deposit runs, play a key role.

What exactly does he mean with the seconds (red) sentence? As I understand it he says that there are no factors which contribute to the vulnerability. So the system can't be made more or less vulnerable. It just is.
But then in the third (green) sentence he says that structurally illiquid portfolios are the source of the vulnerability. So more illiquid portfolios would surely make the system more vulnerable, which condradicts the second sentence, doesn't it?

Is my interpretation right, or did I misunderstand the second sentence?

[Coffin Stuffer]

Bud, I'm English and I don't have a clue what any of those sentences mean.
Difficult to understand out of context too.

[m0lineux]

Are you not able to raise your concerns with a tutor? maybe they are able to clarify it for you. They are there to help after all.

[sNaKeBiTe]

Are you not able to raise your concerns with a tutor? maybe they are able to clarify it for you. They are there to help after all.

Yeah, I probably have to do that... Thanks for trying though

[m0lineux]

No worries, i have had it myself where a tutor releases a scenario or assignment brief and had to clarify they hadn't made a mistake. We are all human

[Shuriken]

It seems like he's saying that the things that cause the vulnerabilities do not have a role to play, or are redundant in the system, they're just there. Then highlights illiquid portfolios as an example. So the misunderstanding I think is that there ARE factors, but those factors do not play a role in the operation of the system.

It's a bit tough to tell without full context though

[sNaKeBiTe]

It seems like he's saying that the things that cause the vulnerabilities do not have a role to play, or are redundant in the system, they're just there. Then highlights illiquid portfolios as an example. So the misunderstanding I think is that there ARE factors, but those factors do not play a role in the operation of the system.

That makes sense. Thanks!

[Shuriken]

\o/ No problemo I'm usually terrible at explaining things too!