If someone makes consistently bad decisions it seems strange to use their decisions as proof they make good decisions.
Their decisions lead to them losing over 600m last year, despite having their best quarter ever.
Their decisions lead to them losing over 600m last year, despite having their best quarter ever.
Of course we can’t know,but your assumption seems to be it’s bad because you don’t understand it.
I’d love to see what the argument _for_ it is.
(Edit) sorry not losing more money than ever. They had a negative 700m quarter once.