I suppose it depends on what you define as 'extremely minor...

I suppose it depends on what you define as 'extremely minor guidance revision'. At the time of the capital raising, Management were guiding for $11m underlying EBITDA and single digit growth in their existing rehab services business despite questions on the effects of the changes to NSW workers comp scheme and impact of new contract terms for the MHS contract. Then at the H1FY2018 results, a downgrade to $10m underlying EBITDA was sneaked in via a graph rather than an explicit statement. Management stood by this guidance at the post results teleconference/broker meetings despite further questioning. Finally the trading update where concerns on these two factors were proved correct and further downgrade to $8.5-9.5M underlying EBITDA. At the midpoint of $9m that is a 18% decrease in guidance from when the money was raised. I marked Management down on their transparency during this period.