Costs on 4D look pretty bad indeed, but the statutory FY17H...

Costs on 4D look pretty bad indeed, but the statutory FY17H basis is not realistic - if that's what you worried about. If you look at the investor presentation, the pro forma costs are "only" ~$15M higher on FY17H ($125M vs $110M), an increase of a tad above 14%, which seems within reason, though still growing faster than the revenue, which is a bad sign I guess. I haven't dug into it too hard, the cost breakdown in the presentation doesn't seem to point to any specific root cause - both periods look pretty similar in comparison (in terms of cost break down), with each cost segment within +/-3% of FY17H.

Same with dividend - I think despite the negative statutory NPAT figures they had positive FCF and hence dividend should not be funded by debt. According to the investor presentation pro forma EPS was 4.29c (with 4c dividend) and payout ratio of the dividend 93% (I think anyway - thought I saw it somewhere in the investor presentation but can't find it anymore) - high indeed, but still not funded from debt I don't think.

So in general best to have a look at the investor presentation where they include the "pro forma" numbers, meaning as if they were running as a separate business all along. Hopefully once they're past 1 year as a separate business all the confusion will go away as their pcp numbers will be normalized.