Lawrence (IL) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

Investors hold a 5.7% share of the Single-Family Residential market in Lawrence County, IL, with a total portfolio of 278 properties. This indicates a modest but present investor footprint within the county's 4,919 total SFRs.

Individual investors are the definitive force in the market, owning 253 properties, which constitutes a commanding 91.0% of the entire investor portfolio. Company ownership is minimal in comparison, with just 26 properties (9.4%).

The entity count further underscores the dominance of small-scale landlords, with 367 individual landlords compared to only 25 company entities. This demonstrates a market built on small, private investment rather than corporate consolidation.

A remarkable financial characteristic of this market is that 100% of the 278 investor-owned properties are held free and clear, with zero properties recorded as being financed. This suggests a highly capitalized, low-leverage investor base that purchases with cash.

The primary purpose of these holdings is clear, with 263 of the 278 properties identified as rented. This high rental penetration confirms that the local investor activity is overwhelmingly focused on generating rental income.

The investor acquisition market in Lawrence County has come to a standstill, with zero properties purchased by landlords in Q4 2025. This lack of activity makes a direct price comparison between landlords and traditional homeowners impossible for the current quarter.

This trend of inactivity extends back through the year, as data shows landlords also acquired 0 properties in 2024. This signals a prolonged pause in investor buying, not just a seasonal dip.

The absence of transaction data prevents any analysis of the price appreciation from the 2020-2023 period to the present. The market's pricing dynamics remain opaque due to the dormant state of investor acquisitions.

Without recent transactions, it is not possible to assess whether a price gap exists between landlords and homeowners in Lawrence County, a common feature in more active markets.

The complete lack of purchasing activity is the most significant finding, suggesting that local investors are currently in a holding pattern, neither expanding nor contracting their portfolios through new acquisitions.

Investor acquisition activity was entirely dormant in Q4 2025, with landlords purchasing 0 of the 0 total SFRs sold in Lawrence County. This reflects a market share of 0.0% and indicates a complete pause in investor buying.

This inactivity was consistent across all investor sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04), who dominate ownership, made zero purchases in the quarter.

Similarly, institutional investors (Tier 09) were also absent from the market, acquiring no properties in Q4 2025. This lack of large-scale investment aligns with the county's small-investor profile.

A direct consequence of the purchasing halt is that no new landlords entered the market. The count of new single-property (Tier 01) investors for the quarter was zero, indicating no new capital is flowing into the rental market from first-time investors.

The data points to a market in a static state, with existing landlords holding their portfolios but no new acquisitions occurring from any segment of the investor community.

The investor market in Lawrence County is overwhelmingly dominated by small-scale landlords. 'Mom-and-pop' investors (owning 1-10 properties) control a combined 96.4% of all investor-owned SFRs, showcasing an extremely concentrated ownership structure at the lowest tiers.

The foundation of this market is the single-property landlord. This tier alone accounts for 256 properties, representing a staggering 92.1% of the total investor portfolio. This highlights that the local rental market is primarily supplied by individuals with a single investment property.

The presence of institutional capital is virtually nonexistent. Investors in the 1,000+ property tier own just one property in the county, amounting to a negligible 0.4% market share. This firmly defines Lawrence County as a market untouched by large-scale corporate investment.

Mid-size landlords (11-100 properties) also have a very small footprint, collectively owning just 8 properties, or 2.9% of the investor total. The market structure clearly lacks a significant middle tier of investors.

Given the lack of recent transaction data, it's not possible to analyze pricing variations by tier. However, the ownership data paints a clear picture of a market built and maintained by the smallest class of real estate investors.

Ownership structure shows a distinct split by portfolio size. Individuals overwhelmingly dominate the entry-level, owning 242 of the 256 single-property portfolios (94.2%). This confirms the 'mom-and-pop' nature of the market is driven by private individuals.

A clear crossover point occurs as portfolios grow. In the small-medium tier (11-20 properties), companies take majority control, owning 2 of the 3 properties (66.7%). This trend continues in the 51-100 property tier, where companies own 3 of 4 properties (75.0%).

Even in tiers where ownership is split, the pattern suggests a shift toward corporate structures for larger holdings. For instance, the 3-5 property tier is evenly divided, with individuals and companies each owning 3 properties (a 50/50 split).

Conversely, some smaller tiers remain exclusively individual-owned. Landlords with 2 properties and those with 6-10 properties are 100% individual-owned, though these tiers represent a very small portion of the total market.

This data reveals a pattern where individuals are the primary source of rental housing supply, but investors who scale their operations beyond 10 properties are more likely to use a corporate structure.

Investor holdings in Lawrence County are geographically concentrated, with five zip codes accounting for the entire investor-owned portfolio. The largest concentration by sheer volume is in the 62439 zip code, with 113 investor-owned properties.

However, the highest market penetration is found elsewhere. In zip code 62460, investors own 73 properties, which represents a significant 17.4% of that area's total SFR housing stock. This is the highest investor ownership rate in the county.

This highlights the important distinction between volume and density. While 62439 has more investor properties, 62460 is the market where investors have the most significant presence relative to the size of the local housing market.

The remaining key areas for investment include 62417, with 53 properties (5.0% rate), and 62466, with 30 properties (4.7% rate), showing modest but notable investor presence.

The data for zip code 62410 is incomplete, preventing a calculation of its ownership rate, though it is listed as a region with investor activity.

A complete lack of historical transaction data for Lawrence County prevents a longitudinal analysis of investor behavior. It is not possible to determine if landlords have historically been net buyers or net sellers.

Without buy and sell counts over time, trends in market liquidity and investor sentiment cannot be established. Key metrics like the buy/sell ratio remain unknown.

The percentage of transactions that occur between landlords, a key indicator of market maturity and insider trading, cannot be calculated. This obscures our understanding of how investors source and dispose of assets.

Similarly, institutional investor (1000+ tier) transaction patterns are unavailable. It is impossible to determine if this tier's single property represents a legacy holding or a recent, isolated acquisition.

Analysis of buy and sell price differentials, which can imply profit margins on flipped or sold properties, is also not feasible due to the data gap. The profitability of local real estate investment remains unquantified from this perspective.

The investor transaction market in Lawrence County was completely inactive in Q4 2025, with landlords involved in 0 of the 0 total SFR transactions. This represents a 0.0% share of market activity.

This inactivity was uniform across all investor tiers. Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04), despite owning 96.4% of the properties, did not transact at all during the quarter.

Likewise, institutional investors (Tier 09) were dormant, with zero buy or sell transactions recorded. This reinforces the view of a market paused across the board.

As there were no landlord purchases, the volume of inter-landlord trading was also zero. No properties were sourced from other landlords, a metric that often points to market liquidity and churn.

The average purchase price by tier is irrelevant this quarter, as no tiers were active. The data collectively paints a picture of a stable but static market where existing investors are holding assets without any new buying or selling taking place.