I’ve no doubt that SEEK’s lawyers and underwriters know this subject matter much better than I do. They’re unlikely to have made any mistakes. But for the life of me, I can’t see how SEEK is allowed to call its current hybrid offer a ‘subordinated note’ and to refer to the instrument as ‘subordinated, unsecured debt’, as is so clearly spelled out in a graphic on page 28 of the prospectus (and elsewhere).
It has all the hallmarks of a preference share, and on the continuum of risk I think of it as being equity-like rather than debt-like. A comparison with other subordinated notes might be useful.