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

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

Market Overview

Total SFR Properties in McDonough (IL)
8,787
Total Investors in McDonough (IL)
1,489
Investor Owned SFR in McDonough (IL)
1,652(18.8%)
Individual Landlords
Landlords
1,319
SFR Owned
1,282
Corporate Landlords
Landlords
170
SFR Owned
429
Understanding Property Counts

Distinct Count Methodology: The total 1,652 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 McDonough County, Acquiring 20% of Q4 Homes as Institutions Divest
Investors own 18.8% of McDonough County's SFR market, with mom-and-pop landlords controlling a staggering 87.0% of that portfolio. In Q4, investors purchased 20.0% of homes sold, securing them at a 60.8% discount compared to traditional homeowners, while institutional players continued their trend of being net sellers.
Landlord Owned Current Holdings
Landlords own 1,652 SFR properties in McDonough County, with individuals holding a dominant 77.6% share.
Cash is the overwhelmingly preferred financing method, with cash purchases outnumbering financed properties nearly 3-to-1 (1,213 vs 439). The portfolio is intensely focused on rentals, with 1,560 properties (94.4%) confirmed as non-owner-occupied.
Landlord vs Traditional Homeowners
Landlords secured a massive 60.8% discount in Q4, paying just $46,609 vs homeowners' $118,902.
The landlord discount widened dramatically throughout 2025, starting from a 14.5% premium paid in Q1 and expanding to a 60.8% discount by Q4. This trend suggests investors are targeting increasingly distressed or lower-cost assets compared to the general market.
Current Quarter Purchases
Landlords acquired 20.0% of all SFR properties sold in McDonough County during Q4 2025.
Mom-and-pop investors (1-10 properties) were the engine of activity, accounting for 17 of 18 landlord purchases (89.5%). In stark contrast, institutional investors acquired only a single property, representing just 5.3% of landlord buying.
Ownership by Tier
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) control a commanding 87.0% of investor-owned SFRs in McDonough County.
Institutional investors (1000+) have a minuscule footprint, owning just 4 properties, or 0.2% of the investor-owned market. In Q4, institutional buyers paid 44.4% more per property than single-property landlords ($77,880 vs $53,945).
Ownership by Tier & Type
Individual investors dominate smaller portfolios, but companies take majority control starting at the 11-20 property tier.
The clear crossover point occurs in the 11-20 property tier, where companies own 57.4% of the assets. By the time a portfolio reaches 51-100 properties, company ownership skyrockets to 98.2%, indicating a professionalization of operations at scale.
Geographic Distribution
Investor activity in McDonough County is heavily concentrated, with the 61455 zip code alone containing 1,015 investor properties.
While 61455 has the highest volume, the 61452 zip code has the highest penetration rate, where investors own 33.3% of the SFR housing stock. The 61470 zip code follows with a high investor ownership rate of 21.6%.
Historical Transactions
Landlords have shifted to strong net buyers in 2025 with 102 buys vs 36 sells, a major reversal from being net sellers in 2024.
In stark contrast, institutional investors are consistently divesting assets, acting as net sellers in both 2025 (1 buy vs. 5 sells) and 2024 (2 buys vs. 6 sells). Q4 2025 buying activity (21 purchases) confirms the ongoing net buyer trend for the broader landlord market.
Current Quarter Transactions
Landlords were involved in 15.3% of all SFR transactions in McDonough County during Q4, totaling 21 transactions.
In Q4, institutional investors paid a significant 44.4% premium over single-property landlords, with an average price of $77,880 compared to $53,945. Notably, 0% of landlord purchases this quarter were sourced from other landlords, indicating they are buying directly from the homeowner market.

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
Landlords own 1,652 SFR properties in McDonough County, with individuals holding a dominant 77.6% share.
Detailed Findings

Investors have a significant footprint in McDonough County, owning 1,652 Single-Family Residential properties, which constitutes 18.8% of the total 8,787 SFRs in the market.

The ownership landscape is overwhelmingly composed of individual investors, who own 1,282 properties (77.6%), compared to 429 properties (26.0%) held by companies. This highlights a market driven by local individuals rather than large corporations.

A closer look at the 1,489 distinct landlord entities reveals the scale of operations: the 1,319 individual landlords own an average of just under one property each, while the 170 companies average approximately 2.5 properties per entity.

Investors in this market demonstrate a preference for low-leverage strategies. A commanding 73.4% of the portfolio (1,213 properties) is owned outright with cash, while only 26.6% (439 properties) is financed.

The portfolio's purpose is clearly defined by its high rental concentration. A total of 1,560 properties are rented, meaning 94.4% of the investor-owned housing stock is actively used for rental income.

Acquisition Timing & Pricing

Comparison of acquisition prices between landlords and traditional homeowners

Key Insight
Landlords secured a massive 60.8% discount in Q4, paying just $46,609 vs homeowners' $118,902.
Detailed Findings

In Q4 2025, landlords demonstrated a keen ability to acquire properties at a deep discount, paying an average of $46,609. This represents a staggering $72,293 (60.8%) price advantage compared to traditional homeowners, who paid an average of $118,902.

The pricing gap between landlords and homeowners has widened significantly throughout 2025. The trend shifted from landlords paying a 14.5% premium in Q1 to securing successive discounts of 55.6% in Q2, 59.0% in Q3, and peaking at 60.8% in Q4.

This growing chasm in acquisition prices indicates that landlords and homeowners are operating in different segments of the market. Landlords appear to be strategically targeting lower-cost, possibly distressed, properties that are not competing with typical homeowner demand.

The first quarter of 2025 was a notable anomaly. During that period, landlords paid an average of $144,600, a premium of $18,355 over homeowners, a complete reversal of the pattern observed for the rest of the year.

When compared to the pandemic-era (2020-2023) average acquisition price of $107,698, recent landlord purchases are substantially lower, signaling either a market correction or a deliberate strategic shift toward lower-value assets.

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 acquired 20.0% of all SFR properties sold in McDonough County during Q4 2025.
Detailed Findings

Landlords were a significant force in the Q4 2025 market, purchasing 18 of the 90 total SFRs sold and capturing a 20.0% share of all transactions.

The acquisition activity was almost entirely driven by small-scale mom-and-pop investors (Tiers 01-04), who were responsible for 89.5% of all landlord purchases, totaling 17 properties.

The market continues to attract new investors, with 13 new single-property landlords entering in Q4. This group alone acquired 11 properties, accounting for 57.9% of all investor buying activity and demonstrating robust grassroots growth.

Institutional investors (1,000+ properties) had a negligible impact on the market, acquiring just one property. This minimal activity highlights a lack of large-scale corporate acquisition in McDonough County.

A gap in the market was evident, as no purchases were made by landlords in the mid-size tiers (11-50 and 101-1,000 properties), indicating Q4 activity was highly concentrated among the smallest investors and a single large institutional player.

Ownership by Purchase Tier

Distribution of investor-owned properties across portfolio size tiers

Key Insight
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) control a commanding 87.0% of investor-owned SFRs in McDonough County.
Detailed Findings

The investor landscape in McDonough County is overwhelmingly dominated by mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties), who collectively own 87.0% of all investor-held SFRs, cementing their role as the backbone of the rental market.

Landlords with just a single property represent the largest segment, holding 874 properties. This constitutes 50.1% of the entire investor portfolio, underscoring the importance of small-scale, individual real estate investment.

In stark contrast to the national narrative, institutional investors (Tier 09) have a nearly nonexistent presence. Their portfolio of just 4 properties accounts for a mere 0.2% of the landlord-owned housing stock.

Mid-size investors (owning 11-1,000 properties) hold a combined 223 properties, making up the remaining 12.8% of the portfolio and bridging the gap between small landlords and the institutional tier.

Ownership is highly concentrated at the smallest scale. The top three tiers by property count are all mom-and-pop segments: single-property landlords (50.1%), those with 3-5 properties (20.1%), and those with 6-10 properties (8.9%).

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, but companies take majority control starting at the 11-20 property tier.
Detailed Findings

A distinct pattern emerges in ownership structure: individual investors are the majority holders in portfolios of 10 or fewer properties, but a decisive shift to corporate ownership occurs at the 11-20 property tier, where companies control 78 properties (57.4%).

The entry point for real estate investing is almost exclusively individual. In the single-property tier, individuals own 803 of the 888 properties, a commanding 90.4% share, proving this segment is the domain of personal investment.

Corporate ownership becomes increasingly concentrated as portfolio sizes grow. This trend culminates in the 51-100 property tier, where companies own 56 of the 57 properties—a near-total 98.2% share.

Even within the larger mom-and-pop segment (6-10 properties), individuals maintain a strong 76.9% majority, holding 120 properties compared to the 36 owned by companies.

The data strongly suggests a strategic shift in operations as investors scale. The sharp increase in corporate ownership beyond the 10-property mark likely reflects a move to formalize businesses for liability protection and greater operational efficiency.

Geographic Distribution

Regional breakdown of investor activity and ownership patterns

Key Insight
Investor activity in McDonough County is heavily concentrated, with the 61455 zip code alone containing 1,015 investor properties.
Detailed Findings

The geographic distribution of investor properties is highly concentrated, with a single zip code, 61455, serving as the epicenter of activity, holding 1,015 landlord-owned SFRs.

Beyond the primary hub, the 61422 zip code emerges as a significant secondary market for investors, with 236 properties, followed distantly by 61440 with 42 properties.

The highest density of investor ownership is found in the 61452 zip code. Here, one in every three SFR properties (33.3%) is landlord-owned, indicating a deeply saturated rental market relative to its size.

Several other areas also exhibit high investor penetration rates, including 61470 (21.6%), 61455 (19.8%), and 61422 (19.0%), all of which surpass the overall county average of 18.8%.

A key insight is the distinction between high-volume and high-penetration areas. The zip code with the most investor properties (61455) is not the one with the highest ownership rate, highlighting that smaller markets like 61452 are more thoroughly saturated with investor activity.

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
Chart Section11 Yoy Institutional
Key Insight
Landlords have shifted to strong net buyers in 2025 with 102 buys vs 36 sells, a major reversal from being net sellers in 2024.
Detailed Findings

A major market shift occurred in 2025, as landlords in McDonough County flipped from being net sellers in 2024 (26 buys vs. 32 sells) to aggressive net buyers, acquiring 102 properties while only selling 36.

Institutional investors (1,000+ tier) are moving in the opposite direction of the market. They have been consistently divesting their holdings, acting as net sellers for two consecutive years and selling five properties for every one they purchased in 2025.

Acquisition momentum for the overall landlord market accelerated throughout 2025. Buying activity peaked in Q3 with 41 purchases before settling at a strong 21 purchases in Q4, far outpacing the 7 properties sold.

The net buying trend for the market as a whole is being driven entirely by small and mid-size investors, who are absorbing properties while the largest institutional players are actively reducing their footprint.

In Q4 2025, landlords maintained their strong net buyer position with a 3-to-1 buy-to-sell ratio (21 acquisitions vs. 7 sales), signaling continued confidence and portfolio growth heading into the new year.

Current Quarter Transactions

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

Key Insight
Landlords were involved in 15.3% of all SFR transactions in McDonough County during Q4, totaling 21 transactions.
Detailed Findings

During Q4 2025, landlords participated in 21 of the 137 total SFR transactions, capturing a 15.3% share of all market activity.

A pricing inversion was observed this quarter, where the largest institutional investor paid the highest price per property at $77,880. This was 44.4% more than the $53,945 average paid by new, single-property landlords, defying the typical expectation of scaled buyers getting discounts.

Transaction volume was dominated by mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04), who were responsible for 19 of the 21 landlord-involved transactions, reinforcing that small investors are the primary drivers of market activity.

A crucial finding from Q4 is the complete absence of inter-landlord trading. With 0% of acquisitions coming from other landlords, it is clear that investors are sourcing their properties from the traditional homeowner market rather than from each other.

Acquisition strategies varied dramatically by tier. The price paid ranged from just $10,000 by a medium-large landlord to $77,880 by the institutional buyer, highlighting vastly different asset targets and business models across the investor spectrum.

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 McDonough County with 87% Ownership, Actively Buying as Institutions Retreat
Holdings
Landlords own 1,652 SFR properties, representing 18.8% of the McDonough County market, with individual investors overwhelmingly controlling the portfolio at 1,282 properties (77.6%) compared to 429 for companies (26.0%).
Pricing
In Q4 2025, landlords demonstrated significant purchasing power, paying an average of $46,609, which is 60.8% less than the $118,902 paid by traditional homeowners—a discount of $72,293 per property.
Activity
Landlords acquired 20.0% of all homes sold in Q4 (18 properties), with the market welcoming 13 new single-property landlords who drove 57.9% of investor purchase activity.
Market Share
The market is fundamentally controlled by small investors, as mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) own 87.0% of all investor housing, while institutional investors (1000+) hold a mere 0.2% share.
Ownership Type
Individual investors are the primary owners in smaller portfolios, but a strategic shift occurs at the 11-20 property tier, where companies become the majority owners (57.4%) for the first time.
Transactions
Landlords have become strong net buyers in 2025 (102 buys vs 36 sells), a complete reversal from 2024. In contrast, institutional investors are persistent net sellers, divesting five properties for every one purchased in 2025.
Market Narrative

The Single-Family Residential investment market in McDonough County, Illinois, is fundamentally shaped by small, local participants. Investors own 1,652 properties, accounting for 18.8% of the county's total SFR housing stock. This portfolio is not controlled by corporations; rather, it is dominated by individuals who own 77.6% of the properties. The market structure reinforces this, with mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) controlling a staggering 87.0% of investor-owned homes, while large-scale institutional investors have a negligible footprint of just 0.2%.

Investor behavior in 2025 reflects a confident and opportunistic strategy. After being net sellers in 2024, landlords have become aggressive net buyers, acquiring 20.0% of all homes sold in the fourth quarter. They are achieving this by targeting a different segment of the market than homeowners, evidenced by the massive 60.8% price discount they secured in Q4. While small investors expand their portfolios, the largest institutional players are actively divesting, signaling a clear divergence in strategy between grassroots capital and large-scale funds.

The key takeaway from McDonough County is that its rental market is a story of local enterprise, not Wall Street acquisition. The market's health and growth are driven by new and existing small landlords who are adept at finding value. The retreat of institutional capital while smaller investors double down suggests a resilient, locally-controlled market where opportunities remain abundant for individual entrepreneurs willing to engage at a granular level.

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 02:45 AM
Data PeriodQ4 2025
Geography LevelCounty
GeographyMcDonough (IL)
×
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 Section11 Yoy Institutional
Chart Section11 Yoy Institutional
×
Chart Section12 Transactions
Chart Section12 Transactions
×
Chart Section12 Prices
Chart Section12 Prices
×
Chart Section12 Prices Detail
Chart Section12 Prices Detail