If anyone has the time and inclination to dig through the internet archive (Wayback Machine) of HYP-P on TMF (I don't have either!) they will find that discussion of HICL
was allowed there, and for the same reason as Gengulphus has stated for his HYP, being, to paraphrase, that HICL (like REITs) is non-DIYable.
While the strict letter of "the law" was that ITs (and OEICs/UTs/ETFs) weren't allowed, the
spirit was that the HYPer should buy shares directly themselves and not via collective vehicles. This reason was stated explicitly in the TMF HYP-P FAQ:
"
6. What are the hallmarks of a HYP strategy?
:
• As a diversified portfolio of directly-held shares, to reduce risk and costs. Holding shares indirectly via funds is not part of the strategy, due to the fund management fees - this includes not using investment trusts and ETFs (also known as iShares)."https://web.archive.org/web/20161020175 ... 48855.aspx (no digging needed to find that
)
I.e. a HYPer shouldn't buy ITs like CTY, MRCH, etc to get a portfolio of high yielders but should DIY it and buy RDSB, VOD, HSBA, etc, etc, etc, themselves.
However, in the case of infrastructure and commercial property it's not possible for the HYPer to buy into the underlying investments directly themselves, and so inclusion of investments such as HICL and REITs was allowed on HYP-P, as they kept within the
spirit of the rules, and were the only way to diversify into those sectors.
(I don't follow the HY boards anymore and wouldn't have noticed this if it hadn't been moved to the Biscuit Bar, and, frankly, don't give a hoot what's decided, but just thought that some history might be of interest....)