1) Re Dividend keeper. People will always have a go. This policy...

1) Re Dividend keeper. People will always have a go. This policy was explicitly designed to improve employment and stop a liquidity crunch. It worked. The situation in March appeared dire. Moreover, I have no doubt that if businesses actually kept operating fully because the government did not give the support, the situation with the virus would be much worse. So I very strongly disagree with this. The point of jobkeeper was to keep sustainable businesses alive and keep good employees in a job. It has done that well. There needs to be money flow through the economy to power the recovery and retail is doing its job- Adairs has kept on its employees, had >30 job ads when I last checked (ie they are more than doing their bit to reinvest in the economy) are investing in capital infrastructure with DHL which will also create domestic jobs and have negotiated with landlords fairly for the recovery phase so that they can participate in upside if it occurs (the channel contribution from stores is relatively weak- crystal clear in the presentation, it still needs to equilibrate -and it will). Moreover, Adairs pivoted extraordinarily well to achieve these results- they absolutely standout. All businesses had to deal with the same set of circumstances. In Adairs case the total dividend is still down a significant % for the year, so I think shareholders have been punished enough, in any case the mob will find something else to get enraged about by the time they actually get paid out!

2)Good questions. I don't know the answers.
My rationale is as follows.
a) Mocka- I made a mistake (I double counted the NZ revenues)- thanks for pointing it out.
Mocka has 2 parts NZ (growing much more slowly) and Australia. New Zealand grew at 18% for the year despite being closed during the harshest lockdown period. I think 21% growth is very doable to hit 25m
Mocka Australia grew at 40% for the year. They have explicitly stated they have some inventory constraints and that it will be fixed by October. When you fix this problem I think 50% is doable which gives 42m
So sorry it should be 67m

b) Re: the store sales
I stand by this. If you read the outlook statement and listened to the TC they are different customers and the types of products that are selling online are different to the stuff from stores.
In the 5 weeks of this FY, store sales are up 20% cycling off the Covid unaffected half whilst online is up 100%. They are opening up a few stores and upsizing stores. They are also hiring a lot of new store staff, presumably in the stores that have agreed rental variations that encourage sales growth. So yes logically the numbers should be significantly higher than the FY 19 (Not FY20 figures)- 320m in sales is only 12% higher total sales than FY19. I think this is probably a bit undercooked if anything.

So re-doing the numbers of c500m in sales (knocking off a further 17m being conservative) still gives >80m EBIT. Even if you knock off 10m EBIT off that to be conservative again gives 70m EBIT- which is still a forward multiple on EBIT of some 7.5.

Anyway like I said I can't find anyway to get EBIT numbers anywhere near 62m with the known information.