Crisp (GA) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

Real Estate comprehensive investment analysis of investor activity in the Crisp (GA) single-family residential housing market. Discover ownership trends, transaction patterns, and market insights.

Market Overview

Total SFR Properties in Crisp (GA)
6,364
Total Investors in Crisp (GA)
2,096
Investor Owned SFR in Crisp (GA)
2,314(36.4%)
Individual Landlords
Landlords
1,851
SFR Owned
1,820
Corporate Landlords
Landlords
245
SFR Owned
501
Understanding Property Counts

Distinct Count Methodology: The total 2,314 represents distinct properties — if 2+ landlords co-own the same property, it's counted only once. This provides the most accurate representation of investor-owned SFR properties.

Why totals don't sum: When broken down by Individual vs Corporate ownership (or by tier), properties with co-ownership across categories are counted once per category. For example, if a property is co-owned by an individual AND a corporate landlord, it appears in both counts. This is why Individual + Corporate totals may exceed the distinct total by 2-4%, and percentages may sum to 100-104%.

Market Visualization

Chart Section2 Coverage
Chart Section3 Ownership Donut
Chart Section4 Distribution

Key Market Insights

Small Landlords Dominate Crisp County's Market, Owning 36.4% of SFRs and Buying Aggressively
Investors own 2,314 single-family properties in Crisp County, GA, a significant 36.4% of the total market, with mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) controlling an overwhelming 89.6% of that portfolio. In Q4, landlords were aggressive net buyers, acquiring 45.7% of all homes sold while securing a 42.6% price discount compared to traditional homeowners. The market shows zero presence from institutional investors.
Landlord Owned Current Holdings
Investors own 2,314 SFR properties (36.4% of the market), with individuals holding a 78.7% majority share.
The vast majority of investor-owned properties are purchased with cash (1,991) versus being financed (323), representing an 86.1% cash position. The portfolio is heavily rental-focused, with 2,246 of 2,314 properties (97.1%) classified as rented.
Landlord vs Traditional Homeowners
In Q4, landlords paid 42.6% less than homeowners, securing an average discount of $89,953 per property.
The price advantage for landlords has been highly volatile, peaking at a 54.0% discount in Q3 before settling at 42.6% in Q4. This follows a much smaller discount of 5.7% in Q2. Data separating individual and company acquisition prices is not available.
Current Quarter Purchases
Landlords captured a 45.7% share of all Q4 home purchases, acquiring 16 of the 35 properties sold.
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) drove this activity, accounting for 11 purchases, or 68.8% of the investor total. In stark contrast, institutional investors with 1,000+ properties made zero acquisitions during the quarter.
Ownership by Tier
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) overwhelmingly control 89.6% of Crisp County's investor-owned housing.
Institutional investors with portfolios of 1,000 or more properties have zero ownership presence in this market. The single-property landlord tier alone accounts for 61.0% of all investor-owned homes. Pricing data by ownership tier is not available.
Ownership by Tier & Type
Individual investors dominate smaller portfolios, while companies become the majority owners in tiers of 11 or more properties.
The crossover occurs at the 11-20 property tier, where companies hold a 58.6% share. In portfolios of 21-50 properties, company dominance increases to 82.1%. No pricing data is available to compare individual versus company acquisition costs.
Geographic Distribution
Investor activity is extremely concentrated, with the 31015 zip code containing 95.6% of all investor-owned SFRs in Crisp County.
The 31015 zip code has 2,212 investor-owned homes, representing a high ownership rate of 36.6%. The next most active area, zip code 31712, has just 93 investor properties but also a significant 34.6% ownership rate.
Historical Transactions
Landlords are aggressive net buyers, acquiring 8.5 properties for every one they sold in Q4 2025.
This trend has accelerated throughout the year, as the 117 properties purchased by investors in 2025 has already surpassed the 86 properties purchased in all of 2024. Institutional investors recorded no transaction activity.
Current Quarter Transactions
Landlords participated in 38.6% of all Q4 transactions, with new, single-property investors leading the activity.
These new Tier 01 investors paid a high average price of $275,000, and were the only group to buy from other landlords, sourcing 25.0% of their properties this way. Institutional investors made zero transactions.

Want deeper insights tailored to your investment strategy?

TALK TO AN EXPERT

Current Holdings Portfolio

Analysis of landlord property holdings by type, financing method, and owner category

Chart Section5 Holdings
Key Insight
Investors own 2,314 SFR properties (36.4% of the market), with individuals holding a 78.7% majority share.
Detailed Findings

Investor ownership has a significant footprint in Crisp County, with 2,314 single-family residences comprising 36.4% of the total 6,364 SFR properties in the market.

The market is characterized by individual, small-scale ownership, as individual investors own 1,820 properties, a commanding 78.7% share, compared to 501 properties (21.7%) held by companies.

This individual dominance is even more pronounced when looking at landlord entities, where 1,851 of the 2,096 total landlords (88.3%) are individuals.

Investors in this market overwhelmingly rely on cash for acquisitions, with 1,991 properties owned outright versus only 323 that are financed. This indicates a well-capitalized investor base that is less sensitive to interest rate fluctuations.

The portfolio is almost exclusively dedicated to rentals, with 2,246 of 2,314 properties (97.1%) rented out, underscoring a strong focus on generating rental income rather than short-term speculation.

On average, company landlords have larger portfolios (2.0 properties per entity) than individual landlords (1.0 properties per entity), suggesting corporate structures are used for scaling operations.

Acquisition Timing & Pricing

Comparison of acquisition prices between landlords and traditional homeowners

Key Insight
In Q4, landlords paid 42.6% less than homeowners, securing an average discount of $89,953 per property.
Detailed Findings

Landlords in Crisp County demonstrate a remarkable ability to acquire properties below market rates, paying an average of just $121,301 in Q4 2025 compared to the $211,254 average for traditional homeowners.

This represents a substantial 42.6% price discount, saving investors an average of $89,953 on every purchase during the quarter.

This pricing advantage has been a consistent but volatile feature of the market throughout 2025. The Q4 discount of 42.6% follows an even larger 54.0% discount in Q3, but a much narrower 5.7% gap in Q2, suggesting opportunistic buying strategies that vary with market conditions.

The deep discounts may indicate that investors are targeting properties requiring significant repairs, sourced through off-market channels, or purchased from distressed sellers, a strategy that is difficult for typical homeowners to replicate.

Compared to the pandemic-era (2020-2023) average acquisition price of $164,509, the Q4 average of $121,301 suggests a recent shift towards acquiring lower-priced assets within the market.

Chart Section6 Prices
Chart Section6 Prices Alt
Chart Section6 Trends
Chart Section6 Yoy Comparison

Current Quarter Purchase Summary

Analysis of Q4 2025 purchase activity by investor tier and type

Chart Section7 Purchases
Chart Section7 Tiers
Key Insight
Landlords captured a 45.7% share of all Q4 home purchases, acquiring 16 of the 35 properties sold.
Detailed Findings

Investor activity surged in Q4, with landlords purchasing 16 of the 35 total SFRs sold in Crisp County, claiming a dominant 45.7% market share.

The backbone of this acquisition activity was small investors, as mom-and-pop landlords (owning 1-10 properties) were responsible for 11 of these purchases, representing 68.8% of all investor buying.

The market saw the entrance of new participants, with 8 new single-property landlord entities making their first purchase and acquiring a total of 7 properties, which accounted for 43.8% of all landlord acquisitions.

Mid-size landlords also contributed to the activity, with those owning 11-1,000 properties acquiring the remaining 5 properties (31.2%).

Institutional-scale investors (1,000+ properties) were completely absent from the market, making zero purchases in Q4. This reinforces that the local investment landscape is controlled entirely by small-to-medium-sized players.

Ownership by Purchase Tier

Distribution of investor-owned properties across portfolio size tiers

Key Insight
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) overwhelmingly control 89.6% of Crisp County's investor-owned housing.
Detailed Findings

The investor landscape in Crisp County is defined by small-scale ownership, with mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) controlling 89.6% of all investor-held SFRs.

Single-property landlords form the largest segment, owning 1,440 properties, which represents 61.0% of the entire investor-owned portfolio. This highlights the grassroots nature of the local rental market.

In stark contrast, institutional investors (1,000+ properties) have no footprint in Crisp County, holding 0.0% of the investor-owned housing stock.

The mid-size investor segment (11-1,000 properties) holds the remaining 10.4% of the portfolio, filling the gap between the smallest landlords and non-existent large institutions.

This ownership structure indicates a highly fragmented market, where the rental housing supply is dependent on thousands of individual owners rather than a few large corporations.

Chart Section8 Distribution
Chart Section8 Prices
Chart Section8 Prices Q4
Chart Section8 Yoy Comparison

Need custom portfolio analysis based on these tier insights?

TALK TO AN EXPERT

Ownership by Tier & Owner Type

Breakdown of individual vs corporate ownership across portfolio tiers

Chart Section9 Ownership
Chart Section9 Growth
Chart Section9 Growth Q4
Chart Section9 Yoy Comparison
Key Insight
Individual investors dominate smaller portfolios, while companies become the majority owners in tiers of 11 or more properties.
Detailed Findings

A clear pattern emerges when analyzing ownership by entity type: individuals build foundational portfolios, while companies are used for scaling.

Individual landlords are the majority owners across all mom-and-pop tiers, holding 89.9% of single-property portfolios and still maintaining a 60.6% share in the 6-10 property tier.

The strategic shift to a corporate structure occurs at the 11-20 property tier, where companies cross the threshold to become the majority owners with a 58.6% share of properties.

This trend accelerates in larger portfolios, with companies owning a commanding 82.1% of properties in the 21-50 property tier, highlighting the use of LLCs and other entities for liability protection and operational efficiency at scale.

This data reveals a natural lifecycle of real estate investment in the region, starting with personal ownership and transitioning to corporate structures as portfolios grow.

Geographic Distribution

Regional breakdown of investor activity and ownership patterns

Key Insight
Investor activity is extremely concentrated, with the 31015 zip code containing 95.6% of all investor-owned SFRs in Crisp County.
Detailed Findings

The distribution of investor properties across Crisp County is not uniform but is instead intensely focused on a single geographic area. The 31015 zip code is the undisputed epicenter of investment, holding 2,212 of the county's 2,314 investor-owned SFRs.

This concentration means that 95.6% of all rental homes provided by investors are located within this one zip code, suggesting it contains the most desirable assets or neighborhoods for rental strategies.

The high density of investment is also reflected in the ownership rate, as 36.6% of all single-family residences in the 31015 zip code are owned by investors.

While other zip codes have investor presence, they are minor in comparison. For example, 31712 has the second-highest count at just 93 properties, though its high penetration rate of 34.6% indicates it is also an attractive, albeit much smaller, investment market.

This geographic consolidation suggests that local market knowledge is a key driver of investment, with operators focusing their capital and management efforts in a well-defined area.

Chart Section10 Top Regions
Chart Section10 Top Pct

Historical Transactions

Buy/sell transaction trends over time for all landlords and institutional investors

Chart Section11 Buysell
Chart Section11 Buysell Price
Chart Section11 Yoy All Landlords
Chart Section11 Institutional
Chart Section11 Institutional Price
Key Insight
Landlords are aggressive net buyers, acquiring 8.5 properties for every one they sold in Q4 2025.
Detailed Findings

Investors in Crisp County are in a strong accumulation phase, acting as decisive net buyers in the market. In Q4 2025, landlords purchased 17 properties while selling only 2, a buy-to-sell ratio of 8.5 to 1.

This aggressive buying posture is a continuation of a year-long trend. Across all of 2025, investors have maintained a buy/sell ratio of 4.18x (117 buys vs. 28 sells).

Acquisition momentum has significantly increased year-over-year. The 117 properties purchased in 2025 already outpace the 86 total purchases made during the entirety of 2024, signaling growing confidence and capital deployment.

The market's net buying activity is driven exclusively by smaller investors, as institutional-grade landlords (1,000+ properties) have been completely inactive, recording zero buys or sells.

This sustained, high-velocity acquisition trend indicates strong belief in the local rental market's future performance and a clear strategy of portfolio expansion among local operators.

Current Quarter Transactions

Q4 2025 transaction analysis by tier, price, and inter-landlord activity

Key Insight
Landlords participated in 38.6% of all Q4 transactions, with new, single-property investors leading the activity.
Detailed Findings

Landlords were a driving force in the Q4 2025 market, being a party to 17 of the 44 total SFR transactions for a 38.6% share of all activity.

New and small landlords were the most active, with the single-property (Tier 01) segment alone accounting for 8 of the 17 investor transactions.

Interestingly, these Tier 01 buyers paid an average price of $275,000, which is significantly higher than the average price paid by larger investors like the 101-1,000 property tier ($51,153). This suggests new entrants may be purchasing higher-quality, turnkey properties at a premium.

A notable pattern in sourcing emerged, as only the smallest investors engaged in trading existing rental stock. Single-property landlords acquired 2 of their 8 properties (25.0%) from other investors.

In contrast, every other investor tier acquired 100% of their properties from non-landlord sources, indicating a focus on adding new housing units to the overall rental pool rather than recycling existing ones.

Chart Section12 Transactions
Chart Section12 Prices
Chart Section12 Prices Detail

Ready to leverage this data for your real estate investment decisions?

TALK TO AN EXPERT

Executive Summary

Small Landlords Dominate Crisp County, Owning 36.4% of Homes and Driving 45.7% of Q4 Sales
Holdings
Investors own 2,314 single-family properties in Crisp County, representing a significant 36.4% of the market. The portfolio is dominated by individual investors, who own 1,820 of these homes (78.7%), while companies own the remaining 501 (21.7%).
Pricing
In Q4 2025, landlords demonstrated significant purchasing power, paying an average of $121,301, which is 42.6% less than the $211,254 paid by traditional homeowners—a discount of $89,953 per property.
Activity
Landlords were highly active in Q4 2025, purchasing 16 properties for a 45.7% share of all market sales. This activity was led by new entrants, with 8 new single-property landlords joining the market.
Market Share
The investor market is controlled by small operators, as mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) own 89.6% of all investor-held housing. In contrast, institutional investors (1,000+ properties) have no presence, owning 0.0% of the portfolio.
Ownership Type
Individual investors form the backbone of smaller portfolios, but a strategic shift occurs as holdings grow. Companies become the majority owners in portfolios starting at the 11-20 property tier.
Transactions
Investors in Crisp County are aggressive net buyers, with a Q4 2025 buy-to-sell ratio of 8.5x (17 buys vs. 2 sells). This activity is driven entirely by smaller investors, as institutional firms were completely inactive.
Market Narrative

The single-family housing market in Crisp County, GA is heavily shaped by a large and active base of small-scale investors. These landlords own 2,314 properties, a significant 36.4% of the county's entire SFR stock. This ownership is not concentrated in corporate hands; rather, it's a grassroots phenomenon. Individual investors own 78.7% of the properties, and mom-and-pop operators with 1-10 homes control a commanding 89.6% of the investor portfolio, while institutional investors have zero presence.

Investor behavior is characterized by aggressive acquisition and savvy pricing. In Q4 2025, landlords purchased 45.7% of all homes sold, demonstrating their impact on market demand. They are strong net buyers, acquiring 8.5 properties for every one they sold, signaling a clear strategy of portfolio growth. This expansion is fueled by an ability to secure properties at a 42.6% discount compared to traditional homeowners, likely by targeting off-market or distressed assets.

The key takeaway for Crisp County is that its rental housing supply and market dynamics are intrinsically linked to the financial health and strategic decisions of thousands of local, individual operators. The absence of institutional players means the market is less susceptible to national corporate strategies but more reliant on local economic conditions. This high concentration of small, actively-buying landlords indicates a strong and likely growing demand for rental housing in the region.

About This Report

Report Methodology

This report analyzes BatchData's Investor Pulse dataset, covering single-family residential (SFR) investor activity across the United States.

Data is extracted from 15 CSV files covering ownership, transactions, and pricing trends, then analyzed using AI-powered insights.

Property Counting Methodology:

Distinct Counts: All headline totals represent distinct properties. If 2+ landlords co-own the same property, it's counted only once. This provides accurate market representation.

Category Breakdowns: When analyzing by tier (01-09), owner type (Individual/Corporate), or occupancy status, properties with co-ownership across categories are counted once per category. This causes breakdowns to sum 2-4% higher than totals, and percentages may sum to 100-104%. This is expected and reflects co-ownership patterns.

TierPropertiesCategory
01-041-10Mom-and-Pop
05-0711-100Mid-Size
08101-1000Large
091000+Institutional
About BatchData

BatchData provides comprehensive real estate data and analytics, offering insights into property ownership, investor activity, and market trends across the United States.

The Investor Pulse dataset tracks single-family residential (SFR) investor behavior at national, state, county, and MSA levels.

For more information, visit batchdata.io or explore our API documentation.

Data Freshness
Report GeneratedMarch 10, 2026 at 10:38 PM
Data PeriodQ4 2025
Geography LevelCounty
GeographyCrisp (GA)
×
Chart Section2 Coverage
Chart Section2 Coverage
×
Chart Section3 Ownership Donut
Chart Section3 Ownership Donut
×
Chart Section3 Ownership Bar
Chart Section3 Ownership Bar
×
Chart Section4 Distribution
Chart Section4 Distribution
×
Chart Section5 Holdings
Chart Section5 Holdings
×
Chart Section6 Prices
Chart Section6 Prices
×
Chart Section6 Prices Alt
Chart Section6 Prices Alt
×
Chart Section6 Yoy Comparison
Chart Section6 Yoy Comparison
×
Chart Section6 Trends
Chart Section6 Trends
×
Chart Section7 Purchases
Chart Section7 Purchases
×
Chart Section7 Tiers
Chart Section7 Tiers
×
Chart Section8 Distribution
Chart Section8 Distribution
×
Chart Section8 Prices
Chart Section8 Prices
×
Chart Section8 Prices Q4
Chart Section8 Prices Q4
×
Chart Section8 Prices 2020
Chart Section8 Prices 2020
×
Chart Section8 Yoy Comparison
Chart Section8 Yoy Comparison
×
Chart Section9 Ownership
Chart Section9 Ownership
×
Chart Section9 Growth
Chart Section9 Growth
×
Chart Section9 Growth Q4
Chart Section9 Growth Q4
×
Chart Section9 Yoy Comparison
Chart Section9 Yoy Comparison
×
Chart Section10 Top Regions
Chart Section10 Top Regions
×
Chart Section10 Top Pct
Chart Section10 Top Pct
×
Chart Section11 Buysell
Chart Section11 Buysell
×
Chart Section11 Buysell Price
Chart Section11 Buysell Price
×
Chart Section11 Yoy All Landlords
Chart Section11 Yoy All Landlords
×
Chart Section11 Institutional
Chart Section11 Institutional
×
Chart Section11 Institutional Price
Chart Section11 Institutional Price
×
Chart Section12 Transactions
Chart Section12 Transactions
×
Chart Section12 Prices
Chart Section12 Prices
×
Chart Section12 Prices Detail
Chart Section12 Prices Detail