Brown (IN) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

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

Market Overview

Total SFR Properties in Brown (IN)
6,706
Total Investors in Brown (IN)
2,549
Investor Owned SFR in Brown (IN)
1,899(28.3%)
Individual Landlords
Landlords
2,258
SFR Owned
1,609
Corporate Landlords
Landlords
291
SFR Owned
313
Understanding Property Counts

Distinct Count Methodology: The total 1,899 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 Investors Dominate Brown County with 99.5% Ownership, Driving 28.3% Market Penetration
In Brown County, investors own 1,899 single-family properties, making up 28.3% of the total market. This ownership is overwhelmingly controlled by mom-and-pop landlords (99.5%), not large institutions (0.2%). In Q4, these small investors acquired 24.2% of homes sold and secured a significant 16.7% price discount compared to traditional homeowners, signaling a shift to more disciplined buying.
Landlord Owned Current Holdings
Investors own 1,899 SFRs (28.3% of the market), with individuals holding 84.7%.
The portfolio is heavily cash-based, with 1,355 properties owned outright versus 544 financed. Nearly the entire investor portfolio (1,878 of 1,899 properties) is classified as rented, confirming a strong focus on generating rental income.
Landlord vs Traditional Homeowners
Landlords secured a 16.7% discount in Q4, paying $60,097 less than homeowners.
This Q4 discount marks a dramatic reversal from the first three quarters of 2025, where landlords paid significant premiums, as high as 43.9% in Q1. The data does not provide a price breakdown between individual and company investors.
Current Quarter Purchases
Landlords purchased 24.2% of all homes sold in Q4, entirely driven by small investors.
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) accounted for 100% of the 15 investor purchases this quarter. In contrast, institutional investors made zero acquisitions, highlighting a complete lack of large-scale buying activity.
Ownership by Tier
Mom-and-pop landlords control 99.5% of investor-owned homes in Brown County.
This overwhelming dominance by small investors (1-10 properties) leaves a negligible 0.2% share for institutional firms, which own just 3 properties. Price data by tier was not available to compare spending patterns.
Ownership by Tier & Type
Companies become the majority owner at the 6-10 property tier, signaling professionalization.
While individuals dominate smaller portfolios (owning over 79% in tiers 1-3), companies control 89.5% of properties in the 6-10 property tier. This marks a clear crossover from personal investment to a business-oriented portfolio strategy.
Geographic Distribution
Investor activity is hyper-concentrated, with two zip codes holding 78% of all investor homes.
Zip codes 47448 (898 properties) and 46164 (582 properties) are the epicenters of investment. Meanwhile, some smaller areas show extreme penetration, with zip code 47435 having an 80.0% investor ownership rate.
Historical Transactions
Landlords are strong net buyers with a 3.5x buy-to-sell ratio, though acquisitions are slowing.
The Q4 2025 buy/sell ratio (3.5x) is significantly lower than in Year 2024 (10.1x), indicating a more cautious acquisition pace. Institutional investors are barely active, with a near-neutral position for the year.
Current Quarter Transactions
Landlords were involved in 22.1% of Q4 transactions, all of which were mom-and-pop investors.
Single-property landlords dominated activity, accounting for 17 of the 21 investor transactions at an average price of $298,712. Notably, 0% of these purchases were from other landlords, showing investors are buying from the general 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
Investors own 1,899 SFRs (28.3% of the market), with individuals holding 84.7%.
Detailed Findings

Investor ownership constitutes a significant portion of the Brown County housing market, with 1,899 of the 6,706 total Single-Family Residential (SFR) properties, or 28.3%, held by landlords.

The market is overwhelmingly dominated by individual investors rather than corporations. Individuals own 1,609 properties, accounting for 84.7% of the investor-owned portfolio, compared to just 313 properties (16.5%) owned by companies.

This individual dominance is also reflected in the landlord entity count, where 2,258 of the 2,549 total landlords are individuals, making up 88.6% of all investor entities in the county.

Investors in Brown County demonstrate strong financial liquidity, with cash-owned properties (1,355) outnumbering financed ones (544) by a ratio of nearly 2.5-to-1. This suggests a reduced reliance on leverage for acquisitions.

The investor portfolio is sharply focused on rental income, with 1,878 of the 1,899 properties classified as rented. This 98.9% rental rate underscores that these holdings are active investments, not secondary or vacation homes.

Acquisition Timing & Pricing

Comparison of acquisition prices between landlords and traditional homeowners

Key Insight
Landlords secured a 16.7% discount in Q4, paying $60,097 less than homeowners.
Detailed Findings

In Q4 2025, landlords demonstrated significant pricing discipline, acquiring properties for an average of $298,712. This was 16.7% less than the $358,809 paid by traditional homeowners, resulting in an average discount of $60,097 per property.

This purchasing behavior is a stark reversal from earlier in the year. In the first three quarters of 2025, landlords consistently paid substantial premiums over homeowners, including a 29.5% premium in Q3 ($538,304 vs. $415,773) and a peak 43.9% premium in Q1 ($495,398 vs. $344,237).

The shift from paying a $151,161 premium in Q1 to securing a $60,097 discount in Q4 indicates a major change in market dynamics. Investors have moved from aggressively bidding in a competitive market to a more cautious, value-driven acquisition strategy.

While acquisition prices fluctuated dramatically throughout 2025, the overall trend for the year shows a cooling from the pandemic-era boom. The average landlord acquisition price of $480,408 in 2025 is higher than the 2020-2023 average of $361,070, but the Q4 price of $298,712 signals a potential price correction.

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 purchased 24.2% of all homes sold in Q4, entirely driven by small investors.
Detailed Findings

Investors were a significant force in the Q4 2025 market, purchasing 15 of the 62 total SFR properties sold, which represents a 24.2% market share.

The entirety of this investor activity was driven by mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04), who made 100% of the quarter's landlord purchases. Institutional investors (Tier 09) were completely absent from the market, making zero acquisitions.

The market continues to see new entrants, with the single-property tier being the most active. In Q4, 17 new landlord entities acquired 12 properties, affirming that first-time investors are the primary source of growth.

Activity was concentrated at the smallest scale, with single-property (12 properties) and two-property (3 properties) landlords making up the vast majority of purchases. This reinforces the grassroots nature of investor demand in Brown County.

The data reveals a clear divide in market participation: small, local investors are actively acquiring properties while large, institutional capital is sitting on the sidelines.

Ownership by Purchase Tier

Distribution of investor-owned properties across portfolio size tiers

Key Insight
Mom-and-pop landlords control 99.5% of investor-owned homes in Brown County.
Detailed Findings

The investor landscape in Brown County is definitively a mom-and-pop market, with landlords in the 1-10 property tiers controlling a staggering 99.5% of all investor-owned SFRs.

Single-property landlords form the bedrock of the market, owning 1,681 properties, which alone accounts for 86.7% of the entire investor-owned housing stock. This highlights the importance of first-time and small-scale investors.

In stark contrast, institutional investors (1,000+ properties) have a near-zero footprint, owning just 3 properties, or 0.2% of the portfolio. This finding directly counters the narrative of large corporations dominating the local housing market.

The ownership structure shows a steep drop-off after the smallest tiers. After the single-property tier (86.7%), ownership falls to 6.2% for two-property landlords and 5.5% for those with 3-5 properties, indicating that few investors scale into large portfolios.

This distribution reveals a highly fragmented market composed of thousands of individual decisions, rather than a concentrated market driven by a few large players.

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
Companies become the majority owner at the 6-10 property tier, signaling professionalization.
Detailed Findings

A clear pattern of ownership emerges across portfolio sizes, with a distinct crossover point where company ownership overtakes individual ownership. This transition occurs in the 6-10 property tier, where companies own 89.5% of the properties.

Individual investors are the primary owners in smaller-scale tiers. They hold 85.7% of single-property portfolios, 79.5% of two-property portfolios, and 84.1% of portfolios with 3-5 properties.

The data suggests that as landlords scale beyond five properties, they are significantly more likely to professionalize their operations by holding assets within a company structure. This shift reflects a move from a hobbyist or supplemental income approach to a formal business enterprise.

Even at the smallest scale, corporate structures are utilized. Companies own 14.3% of single-property investor homes (243 properties), indicating that many new investors choose to incorporate from their very first purchase.

This analysis reveals two distinct investor paths: the vast majority who remain small-scale individual owners, and a minority who cross a threshold into a more formalized, company-based investment model as their portfolios grow.

Geographic Distribution

Regional breakdown of investor activity and ownership patterns

Key Insight
Investor activity is hyper-concentrated, with two zip codes holding 78% of all investor homes.
Detailed Findings

Investor ownership in Brown County is not evenly distributed but is instead highly concentrated in a few key areas. The zip codes of 47448 (898 properties) and 46164 (582 properties) together account for 1,480 properties, representing 77.9% of the entire investor-owned portfolio.

These dominant zip codes also exhibit high investor ownership rates, with 29.0% of SFRs in 47448 and 36.4% in 46164 owned by landlords, indicating these are core markets for rental housing.

Certain smaller zip codes display extreme levels of investor penetration. For instance, 80.0% of the SFRs in 47435 are investor-owned, followed by 50.0% in 47264. These figures suggest niche markets, possibly dominated by vacation rentals or highly localized investment plays.

The top area by count, 47448, contains more than three times the number of investor-owned properties as the third-ranked area, 46160 (898 vs. 202), underscoring the degree of geographic focus among investors.

This geographic analysis reveals that investor strategy in the county is targeted, focusing intensely on specific sub-markets rather than applying a broad, county-wide approach.

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 strong net buyers with a 3.5x buy-to-sell ratio, though acquisitions are slowing.
Detailed Findings

Landlords in Brown County have been consistent net buyers, steadily accumulating properties over the past two years. In Q4 2025, they purchased 21 properties while selling only 6, maintaining a strong net positive position.

However, the pace of acquisition is slowing. The buy-to-sell ratio has compressed from a high of 10.1-to-1 in 2024 (151 buys vs. 15 sells) to 7.3-to-1 for Year 2025 (117 buys vs. 16 sells), and further down to 3.5-to-1 in the most recent quarter.

This trend suggests that while investors are still in an accumulation phase, their purchasing has become more measured and selective compared to the more aggressive buying seen in the previous year.

Institutional investor activity is minimal and shows no clear accumulation trend. For all of 2025, they were net buyers of only a single property (3 buys vs. 2 sells), indicating they are not a significant factor in market supply or demand.

The transaction data paints a picture of a market driven by smaller investors who continue to expand their portfolios, albeit at a decelerating rate, while large-scale investors remain on the sidelines.

Current Quarter Transactions

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

Key Insight
Landlords were involved in 22.1% of Q4 transactions, all of which were mom-and-pop investors.
Detailed Findings

In Q4 2025, landlords participated in 21 of the 95 total SFR transactions, capturing a 22.1% share of all market activity.

The entirety of this activity was driven by mom-and-pop investors, with institutional investors making zero transactions during the quarter. This reinforces that small investors are the sole drivers of current acquisition trends.

New and single-property landlords were the most active segment, responsible for 17 of the 21 investor transactions. Their average purchase price was $298,712, setting the benchmark for investor acquisitions this quarter.

A significant finding from Q4 is the complete absence of inter-landlord trading. With 0% of properties bought from other landlords, it's clear that investors are acquiring their inventory from the broader market, such as traditional homeowners who are selling.

This pattern indicates that the investor market in Brown County is expanding its footprint by absorbing housing stock, rather than merely churning properties among existing landlords.

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 control 99.5% of Brown County's rental market as institutional players remain absent.
Holdings
Landlords own 1,899 SFR properties, representing 28.3% of Brown County's market. Individual investors are the dominant force, holding 1,609 of these properties (84.7%) compared to 313 (16.5%) owned by companies.
Pricing
In a major strategy shift, landlords paid 16.7% less than homeowners in Q4, securing an average discount of $60,097 per property ($298,712 vs $358,809) after paying steep premiums earlier in 2025.
Activity
Investors purchased 24.2% of homes sold in Q4 (15 properties), with activity driven entirely by mom-and-pop landlords. The market saw 17 new single-property landlords enter, confirming growth from new, small-scale buyers.
Market Share
Small landlords (1-10 properties) have near-total control of the investor market with a 99.5% ownership share, while institutional investors (1,000+ properties) own a negligible 0.2%.
Ownership Type
Individual investors dominate smaller portfolios, but companies assume majority ownership (89.5%) in the 6-10 property tier, marking a clear threshold for portfolio professionalization.
Transactions
Landlords remain strong net buyers with a 3.5x buy-to-sell ratio in Q4 (21 buys vs. 6 sells). In contrast, institutional investors were inactive in Q4 and net buyers of only one property for the entire year.
Market Narrative

The single-family rental market in Brown County, Indiana is characterized by high penetration and overwhelming dominance by small, individual investors. Landlords own 1,899 properties, a substantial 28.3% of the county's entire SFR housing stock. This market is fundamentally a mom-and-pop ecosystem, with investors holding 1-10 properties controlling 99.5% of the rental supply. Individuals own 84.7% of these homes, while the influence of large institutional investors is practically nonexistent at just 0.2%.

Investor behavior in Q4 2025 points to a market that is cooling and becoming more disciplined. After paying significant premiums earlier in the year, investors pivoted to value-driven acquisitions, securing an average 16.7% discount compared to traditional homeowners. While landlords remain strong net buyers—acquiring 3.5 properties for every one they sold—the overall pace of acquisitions has slowed from previous years. All Q4 purchasing activity, which accounted for 24.2% of total home sales, was driven by mom-and-pop investors, with 17 new landlords entering the market.

The key takeaway is that Brown County's housing market is shaped not by distant corporations, but by local, small-scale investors who are still accumulating properties, albeit more cautiously. The market's future trajectory will depend on the financial health and strategic decisions of these individual owners. With activity hyper-concentrated in just two zip codes and zero properties being traded between landlords, the current trend is one of strategic expansion into the general housing market, not internal churn within the investor community.

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 16, 2026 at 08:37 AM
Data PeriodQ4 2025
Geography LevelCounty
GeographyBrown (IN)
×
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