Pass-through,
not fixed rent.
Why SIRE and Myshon deliberately avoid the 'guaranteed rent' language that has caused failures elsewhere in the specialist housing sector.
Five steps from
DWP to investor.
Income flows from government welfare funding through the local authority, through Myshon's operating structure, and arrives at the investor as a net residual rent.
Housing Benefit or Universal Credit — paid from established UK welfare routes to the Local Authority.
Contracts Myshon for placement services and housing management under a formal service agreement.
Collects service charge income and manages all operational aspects — tenancy, repairs, compliance.
Target landlord rent paid to the investor — the residual income after operating costs and service charge.
Receives target 12–13% net yield annually, with CPI+1% uplift applied each year on the agreement anniversary.
Not all income
models are equal.
Buy-to-let, fixed-rent and pass-through income have fundamentally different counterparty structures, risk profiles and regulatory implications.
Why SIRE avoids
the guaranteed label.
Multiple specialist housing operators have failed across the sector — and the common thread is unsustainable fixed-rent promises that created single-counterparty exposure investors never fully understood.
Guaranteed rent implies a legal obligation from a single counterparty to pay a fixed sum regardless of occupancy or operating conditions. This creates a fragile balance sheet risk that is hidden behind apparently simple language. When the operator cannot sustain the guarantee, investors lose both income and, in some cases, the asset itself.
SIRE's pass-through structure makes the income mechanics transparent: what flows to the investor is the residual income after real operating costs. The FCA and RICS both distinguish between pass-through income arrangements and guaranteed return products — and that distinction matters for regulatory clarity, investor suitability and honest marketing.
What happens if
occupancy falls?
Illustrative 3-bedroom property at £176,486. Investor target rent £1,970/month (13% yield). Four occupancy scenarios from near-catastrophic to actual portfolio performance.
| Scenario | Occupancy | Running Yield |
|---|---|---|
| Low occupancy | 48% | 10% |
| Extreme stress | 70% | 15% |
| Moderate stress | 85% | 18% |
| Actual portfolio | 99% | 21%+ |
Key finding: the model pays the investor even at 70% occupancy — a level far below typical performance.
Break-even occupancy for a full investor return sits below 70%. At 70%, the pass-through lease still generates a £183/month surplus above the 13% target rent. The portfolio's actual 99% occupancy rate means the 70% scenario represents an extreme stress case with significant headroom. Even at 48% — a near-catastrophic vacancy level — the investor retains a 10% running yield.
Data based on a sample size of 600 units over a 12-month period. Illustrative figures based on current LHA rates for a 3-bed property at £176,486. These are targets, not guarantees. Capital at risk. For professional investors only — does not constitute financial advice.