Clark (ID) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

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

Market Overview

Total SFR Properties in Clark (ID)
177
Total Investors in Clark (ID)
68
Investor Owned SFR in Clark (ID)
48(27.1%)
Individual Landlords
Landlords
57
SFR Owned
38
Corporate Landlords
Landlords
11
SFR Owned
11
Understanding Property Counts

Distinct Count Methodology: The total 48 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

Mom-and-Pop Landlords Command 100% of Clark County's Investor Market, Owning 27.1% of All Homes
Investors own 48 single-family residential properties in Clark County, representing a significant 27.1% of the total market. The landscape is entirely controlled by mom-and-pop landlords (100%), with individuals holding 79.2% of the properties. In a quiet Q4, landlords made 100% of all market purchases, with a single new investor entering the market.
Landlord Owned Current Holdings
Investors own 48 properties, a 27.1% market share, with individuals holding a 79.2% majority.
The portfolio is overwhelmingly cash-based, with 42 of 48 properties (87.5%) owned outright without financing. Nearly all investor properties (47 of 48) are non-owner-occupied and function as rentals.
Landlord vs Traditional Homeowners
While no landlord purchases occurred in Q4 2025, Q2 data shows they paid a 35.5% premium over homeowners.
In a striking market anomaly during Q2 2025, landlords paid an average of $255,779, a $67,068 premium over the traditional homeowner price of $188,711. Sparse transaction data for other periods prevents the analysis of long-term pricing trends.
Current Quarter Purchases
Landlords made 100% of the single SFR purchase recorded in Clark County during Q4 2025.
This sole purchase was made by a new, single-property landlord, meaning mom-and-pop investors accounted for 100% of Q4 acquisition activity. There was zero purchasing activity from institutional investors.
Ownership by Tier
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) have complete control, owning 100% of investor-held SFRs.
Single-property landlords alone own 43 properties, accounting for 89.6% of all investor housing. There is zero ownership by institutional investors (1000+ properties) in Clark County.
Ownership by Tier & Type
Company investors are only present in the single-property tier, owning 25% of those homes.
Individuals are the sole owners in all multi-property portfolios (100% of 2-property and 3-5 property tiers). Companies never become the majority owners at any portfolio size in this market.
Geographic Distribution
Investor activity is highly concentrated in zip code 83446, which has a 50.0% investor ownership rate.
Zip code 83446 not only has the highest rate but also the most investor-owned properties at 19. Zip code 83423 also shows significant investor presence with 29 properties and a 21.2% ownership rate.
Historical Transactions
Based on limited data from 2024, landlords were net buyers, acquiring 2 properties and selling only 1.
Transaction volume is too low to determine a reliable inter-landlord sales percentage or compare buy-versus-sell pricing strategies. No institutional transactions were recorded in any period.
Current Quarter Transactions
Landlords accounted for 100% of the single SFR transaction that occurred in Clark County in Q4 2025.
The transaction was conducted by a mom-and-pop investor in the single-property tier. The property was not purchased from another landlord, indicating it was acquired from a traditional homeowner or other entity.

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 48 properties, a 27.1% market share, with individuals holding a 79.2% majority.
Detailed Findings

Investors have a substantial footprint in Clark County, owning 48 single-family residential properties, which constitutes a significant 27.1% of the county's total 177 SFRs.

The market is dominated by small, individual investors, who own 38 of the 48 properties (79.2%). This contrasts with company-owned properties, which make up the remaining 11 homes (22.9%).

A defining characteristic of this market is the preference for all-cash ownership. A striking 87.5% of investor-owned homes (42 properties) are held free and clear, indicating a market dominated by cash-heavy, low-leverage investment strategies. Only 6 properties are financed.

The portfolio is almost entirely dedicated to rentals, with 47 of the 48 properties (97.9%) classified as non-owner-occupied. This highlights a clear focus on generating rental income rather than short-term speculation.

By entity count, individual landlords (57) vastly outnumber company landlords (11), reinforcing the mom-and-pop character of the local investor landscape.

Acquisition Timing & Pricing

Comparison of acquisition prices between landlords and traditional homeowners

Key Insight
While no landlord purchases occurred in Q4 2025, Q2 data shows they paid a 35.5% premium over homeowners.
Detailed Findings

In Q4 2025, the market saw no recorded acquisitions by landlords, making a direct price comparison for the quarter impossible.

Data from Q2 2025 reveals an unusual pricing dynamic that defies national trends. During that period, landlords paid a significant 35.5% premium, with an average acquisition price of $255,779 compared to the traditional homeowner average of $188,711.

This price difference of $67,068 per property in Q2 suggests landlords in this specific market may be targeting different types of properties or facing unique competitive pressures not seen in larger metropolitan areas.

Historical data shows price volatility in a low-volume market, with landlord acquisition averages at $348,460 in 2024 and $243,333 during the 2020-2023 period.

Due to the limited number of transactions, establishing a consistent landlord discount or premium trend over time is not feasible for Clark County.

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 made 100% of the single SFR purchase recorded in Clark County during Q4 2025.
Detailed Findings

The fourth quarter was extremely quiet in Clark County, with only one single-family home purchase recorded across the entire market.

Real estate investors were responsible for this single transaction, giving them a 100.0% market share of all purchasing activity in Q4 2025.

The purchase was made by a new entrant to the market, a 'mom-and-pop' landlord now holding a single investment property. This highlights that growth, while minimal, is happening at the smallest end of the investor spectrum.

Consequently, 100.0% of landlord purchases in the quarter were made by investors in the mom-and-pop tiers (1-10 properties).

There was no acquisition activity from mid-size (11-1000 properties) or institutional (1000+ properties) investors, underscoring their absence from this market.

Ownership by Purchase Tier

Distribution of investor-owned properties across portfolio size tiers

Key Insight
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) have complete control, owning 100% of investor-held SFRs.
Detailed Findings

The investor ownership landscape in Clark County is exclusively controlled by mom-and-pop landlords, who own 100.0% of the 48 investor-held SFRs.

The market is heavily concentrated in the smallest tier, with single-property landlords (Tier 01) alone owning 43 properties, representing a commanding 89.6% of all investor-owned homes.

The remaining investor properties are held by landlords with 2-5 properties. Two-property landlords own 3 homes (6.2%), and small landlords with 3-5 properties own 2 homes (4.2%).

There is no presence of mid-size landlords (11-1,000 properties) or large institutional investors (1,000+ properties) in the county's SFR market.

This tier distribution illustrates a market defined by local, small-scale investment rather than large, consolidated portfolios.

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
Company investors are only present in the single-property tier, owning 25% of those homes.
Detailed Findings

The distribution of ownership by type reveals a unique pattern in Clark County. Individual investors are the sole owners in every multi-property tier, holding 100.0% of portfolios with two properties (3 homes) and 3-5 properties (2 homes).

Corporate ownership is confined exclusively to the single-property tier. Within this tier, companies own 11 homes, which accounts for 25.0% of the properties held by single-unit landlords.

This structure suggests that when companies invest here, they do so through single-asset entities like LLCs rather than building larger, company-managed portfolios.

Individuals maintain a strong majority in the dominant single-property tier, owning 33 of the 43 properties (75.0%).

Unlike in larger markets, there is no crossover point where companies become the majority owners; individual landlords dominate across all portfolio sizes.

Geographic Distribution

Regional breakdown of investor activity and ownership patterns

Key Insight
Investor activity is highly concentrated in zip code 83446, which has a 50.0% investor ownership rate.
Detailed Findings

Investor ownership in Clark County is not evenly distributed, showing hyper-local concentration in specific zip codes.

The most significant concentration is in zip code 83446, where investors own 19 properties, representing an extraordinarily high 50.0% of the area's single-family housing stock.

Zip code 83423 contains the highest absolute number of investor-owned homes at 29, which translates to a substantial 21.2% investor ownership rate for that area.

These two zip codes alone account for the entirety of the 48 investor-owned properties identified in the county, indicating that investor activity is confined to these specific communities.

The data highlights that certain neighborhoods within the county are focal points for rental investment, leading to much higher investor penetration than the county-wide average of 27.1%.

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
Key Insight
Based on limited data from 2024, landlords were net buyers, acquiring 2 properties and selling only 1.
Detailed Findings

Historical transaction data for Clark County is sparse, reflecting its low sales volume. However, the most recent full-year data from 2024 indicates that landlords were net buyers.

During 2024, landlord entities purchased 2 single-family homes while selling only 1, resulting in a net addition of 1 property to their collective portfolio.

This net buyer position, though based on minimal activity, suggests a tendency toward portfolio growth rather than divestment in the recent past.

There is insufficient data to analyze the flow of properties between investors, such as the percentage of purchases from other landlords.

No transactions involving institutional-scale investors (1000+ properties) were recorded, confirming their absence from the county's transactional market.

Current Quarter Transactions

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

Key Insight
Landlords accounted for 100% of the single SFR transaction that occurred in Clark County in Q4 2025.
Detailed Findings

Reflecting a very slow quarter, only one transaction involving a single-family home took place in Clark County in Q4 2025.

An investor was the buyer in this sole transaction, capturing a 100.0% share of the quarter's market activity.

The purchase was made by an investor in the smallest category, the single-property tier, reaffirming that market activity is driven by new or small-scale landlords.

The transaction did not involve a landlord-to-landlord sale, as 0.0% of properties acquired by this tier were bought from other landlords.

No transactions were recorded for any other investor tier, highlighting the complete lack of activity from mid-size or institutional players during the quarter.

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

Mom-and-Pop investors fully control Clark County's rental market, owning 27.1% of all homes.
Holdings
Landlords own 48 single-family properties in Clark County, a 27.1% share of the total market. Individual investors hold a clear majority with 38 of these properties (79.2%), while companies own the remaining 11 (22.9%).
Pricing
No landlord purchases were recorded in Q4 2025. However, data from Q2 2025 showed an unusual trend where landlords paid a 35.5% premium over traditional homeowners, averaging $255,779 per acquisition.
Activity
Investors made 100% of the single SFR purchase in Q4, with one new single-property landlord entering the market. All activity was driven by mom-and-pop investors, with zero purchases by institutional firms.
Market Share
Small mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) exert total control, owning 100.0% of all investor-held housing. Institutional investors (1000+ properties) have zero presence in the county.
Ownership Type
Individual investors dominate all portfolio sizes, while company ownership is uniquely confined to the single-property tier. There is no portfolio size at which companies become the majority owners.
Transactions
In 2024, landlords were net buyers with 2 purchases versus 1 sale. The single Q4 2025 transaction was a purchase, with no institutional activity recorded in any period.
Market Narrative

The real estate investor market in Clark County, Idaho, is characterized by its small scale and the complete dominance of local, individual investors. Landlords own a substantial 48 single-family homes, representing a high 27.1% penetration rate of the county's entire SFR housing stock. This landscape is exclusively shaped by mom-and-pop landlords (100% of holdings), with individuals owning a 79.2% majority of properties. Large-scale institutional investors have no presence, making this a market defined by small, independent ownership.

Investor activity in Q4 2025 was minimal but telling, with landlords responsible for the single home purchase recorded in the county. This transaction brought a new single-property landlord into the market, reinforcing that growth stems from the smallest investors. Pricing behavior is atypical; while Q4 data was unavailable, Q2 figures showed landlords paying a significant 35.5% premium over homeowners, a stark contrast to national trends. Transactionally, landlords have recently been net buyers, signaling a modest trend of accumulation in this tightly held market.

The key takeaway for Clark County is a highly concentrated, cash-driven rental market controlled entirely by small-scale operators. The high investor ownership rate, particularly in zip codes like 83446 (50.0% rate), indicates that rental housing is a critical component of the local property market. The absence of institutional players and the prevalence of cash purchases suggest a stable, low-leverage environment insulated from broader financial market volatility, but one with very low liquidity and transaction volume.

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 12, 2026 at 01:49 AM
Data PeriodQ4 2025
Geography LevelCounty
GeographyClark (ID)
×
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 Section12 Transactions
Chart Section12 Transactions
×
Chart Section12 Prices
Chart Section12 Prices
×
Chart Section12 Prices Detail
Chart Section12 Prices Detail