Not a very enlightening upgrade, I have to say. (In fact, a...

Not a very enlightening upgrade, I have to say.
(In fact, a downright confusing one.)

To the extent that the JH2017 result has been adversely impacted by an investment in costs that relate to increasing capacity for growth is not the least concerning to me (in fact, as a shareholder, I welcome and applaud it).

But that turnover for the full-year is expected to be "comparable with previous periods" is disconcertingly vague, because I don't know what is meant by "previous periods" (plural).

For here are Revenue figures for some of the most recent "previous periods"

DH2015: $2.98m
JH2016: $3.08m
DH2016: $3.36m
JH2017: $3.0m (like DH2015 and JH2016)? or $3.4m (like DH2016)? (Which one?)

Or, if one was to interpret the announcement as referring to full-year figures, and it is saying that FY2017 Revenue is to be comparable to FY2016's $6.1m, then it implies that JH2017 Revenue of around $2.70m, which would be around 12% down on pcp.

Each one of those varying interpretations generate some starkly different implications for the way the business is performing.

It is really a poorly-worded announcement.