Except that is not stated that the loss reduction came from profits, that's what I'm aiming for; it could be for the usual practices: cutting expenses like reduction of staff (normally is necessary one and work is redistibuted over the remaining one),travels and benefits (again, rarely the cuts are aimed to the top guys) etc. That's why I say we should focus on actual merits, not in balance at the end of the month, because in bold numbers they look the same, but they aren't.
Except your example does not fit the argument you were making. The original example used was an executive that comes in and reduces 300 mil lose to 100 mil. That means he managed to scrape together 200 mil profits in less than a year but was unable to cover the mistakes of the previous executive. Your example would the the one that made the mistake getting a bonus which is a completely different situation.
Again, it's not an accountant balance: you have to distinguish between real profits and just a reduction of losses, in the books they all may look the same, but in the real life they don't.
In the example you propose, I understand an executive did his/her job good, obtained extraordinary revenue and deserves a bonus for it even if the company at large balances in the red numbers. (in small companies they'll just get a pat in the back because red numbers means cut for everyone, sorry pal)
I propose you against it an example from (sadly) real life: the top executives of the most important banks, companies, etc of USA avoided bankrupcy via a multimillonary bailout conceded by the White house, paid by the treasury of the country; whew! that's a big positive entry in the books, no doubt after all this crisis they deserve a big juicy bonus, right?
This is how private insurance companies work in Japan, too.
Interestingly, the public insurance tends to work the opposite way, charging people less or paying them more than proper, so the government has to go and nicely ask them to return the cash, but good luck with that...