"While 1.3B€ is not pocket change, it is also an amount that ASML can not afford to lose." - The sentence is framed like a contrast but then instead it says the same thing twice.

I’ll see your pedantry and raise you ... more pedantry. The sentence may be a bit clunky, but there’s nothing grammatically wrong with it. And you’re leaving out the first sentence, which frames the comparison:

> ASML gross revenue was 28B€ in 2024, and their net income was 7.5B€. While 1.3B€ (the amount ASML invested in this 1.7B€ fund raise) is not pocket change, it is also an amount that ASML can not afford to lose.

Worded another way:

> ASML had a healthy margin of 7.5B€ on 28B€ in gross revenue in 2024. 1.3B€ isn’t a huge chunk of this, relatively speaking, but *it’s also an amount that ASML can’t afford to lose.*

Still clunky. Still not wrong.

> there’s nothing grammatically wrong with it.

There was nothing in the comment that you reply to suggesting that it was grammatically wrong: "The sentence is framed like a contrast but then instead it says the same thing twice." If anything it suggests it's semantically wrong.

You replaced “1.3B is not pocket change” with “1.3B€ isn’t a huge chunk of this”. Those have opposite meanings.

Either incorrectly worded, or very poorly worded.

It's a open question as to which one.

language exists to convey a shared concept, you don’t think the sentence means “it’s a lot of money for ASML to risk losing?” and wouldn’t have been mentioned if it meant inconsequential or small?

Based on context + structure, I believe the sentence has a stray "not" -- the amount is not small but it is an affordable loss for ASML.

@bondarchuk you are right. Something wrong with that sentence.

It reads like the second part counters the first, but it’s actually the same point repeated. It's not that hard to understand.