Ferrovial already uses hybrid-like capital: “Other Equity Securities”/perpetual subordinated bonds are about €508m at 2022 year-end, small relative to total capital. The S&P equity-credit cap is 15% of adjusted capital, so the practical question is whether Ferrovial should fill that cap aggressively.

Key considerations:

- **Leverage and capital structure:** Total debt-like borrowings are substantial, especially infrastructure-project debt. Equity is €6.35bn, while noncurrent and current borrowings/lease liabilities are material. More hybrid issuance could support credit metrics if granted equity credit.
- **Liquidity:** Cash and equivalents remain high at €5.13bn, reducing urgency to raise capital.
- **Profitability and coverage:** 2022 profit attributable to owners was only €186m, down sharply from 2021, and finance costs remain meaningful. Hybrids would add coupon burden, though typically below common equity cost.
- **Rate environment:** 2022 swap rates rose sharply versus 2020–2021. Hybrid issuance is therefore materially more expensive than in prior years. This argues against maximizing hybrid use immediately.
- **Business profile:** Ferrovial has long-duration infrastructure assets, which fit well with long-dated/perpetual hybrid capital. However, its significant project-finance structure and already strong liquidity make full-cap utilization unnecessary.
- **Ratings perspective:** Moderate hybrid use can improve adjusted capital without over-reliance. But pushing to 100% of the S&P cap could be viewed as aggressive financial policy, particularly in a high-rate environment.

Overall, Ferrovial should use hybrids meaningfully but not maximize the S&P cap. A **moderate-to-high utilization** is appropriate: enough to benefit from equity credit and preserve balance-sheet flexibility, but below full cap due to higher interest rates and sufficient liquidity. Among the choices, **50% of the S&P cap** is the best fit.

<answer>50%</answer>