Just looking at some numbers based on your post then… If they...

Just looking at some numbers based on your post then…
If they pay out 4c/s pa, that’s ~$32m
Most recent NPAT numbers I can find are Statutory NPAT (including Who Dat one offs, hedging & FX) of US$122.5m for 6m to Dec 23 which is currently around A$181.66m, so ~A$363.32m pa. So 4c/s is only 8.8% of that… or underlying NPAT was US$144.7m for 6m, or A$429.19m pa…4c is 7.4% of that. (Not sure which one you were thinking of?) Anyway, 40% NPAT is between A$144.93-171.68m and if they pay a $32m div, they would have $112.93-139.68m left over to play with if they did go for capital returns of 40% NPAT if they wanted to do a buyback. And you would assume the first 6m of this year are better than 2H 23 so all of above might well be a bit better as well.
So, it’s certainly possible to design something like this to make everyone happy with still plenty of cash staying in the bank and ultimately repaying the US$350m secured notes when they mature in 2029. I just don’t see why that’s the best strategy when they are costing US$36-44m pa. (Is there any mechanism to cancel them early if you have cash sitting in the bank doing nothing?) I would suggest if they feel they have to keep punters happy with a div, then the 4c div is affordable but forget the buyback. Or 4c div and a buyback based on 20% NPAT minus the div as a compromise?
Feel free to let me know if I got any of those numbers wrong.