That seems more likely especially in a case like this, where the employees are skilled, and where the company isn't doing anything unique (novel, charitable, beneficial to society in a nonprofit way, etc) that would merit rating it by some other metric than profit.
It just seems tremendously wasteful to be losing tons of money in a market where there's already a lot of competition and you're not doing anything new. This isn't an electric car, and AI, a space company, where the outlay might be a lot and the time to develop the tech is great, this is a long-established market full of already-solved-profitably problems.
I would guess most of Xero's employees are outside of NZ, but since NZ's primary export is dairy, the government might be foolish enough to try propping it up with some nebulous hope that "keeping the tech industry afloat" will somehow be beneficial, rather than letting the few technologists in their employ go to work for another, more useful company, or to go and start a startup of their own (perhaps with government funding, in lieu of it going to Xero, in that hypothetical situation.)
Maybe without Xero, they'd be out looking for and learning new things, starting new companies, etc. That's what I would do if I worked for Xero (which was conceivable, at one point) and they closed down.
There's a _ton_ of funding going from the states to various agencies for various pro-software, next-silicon-valley initiatives. Most of this money is handled by career bureaucrats with little personal experience in running a business.
It's easy to waste someone else's money by giving CPR to a large domestic IT firm, when the alternative is being held responsible for the lost jobs when the company goes under.