Scott (KS) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

Investors hold a significant stake in the Scott County housing market, owning 452 Single-Family Residential properties, which constitutes 28.4% of the total 1,594 SFRs.

Individual investors are the primary force, owning 332 properties, or 73.5% of the investor-owned portfolio, compared to the 121 properties (26.8%) held by companies.

The landlord base reflects this individual dominance, with 362 individual landlords outnumbering the 56 company landlords by more than a 6-to-1 ratio.

A defining characteristic of this market is its complete reliance on cash. All 452 investor-owned properties are held as cash assets, with zero properties recorded as financed, signaling a debt-averse investment strategy.

The portfolio is heavily geared towards generating rental income, with 429 of the 452 properties (94.9%) actively rented, underscoring the business focus of these holdings.

A comparison between landlord and traditional homeowner acquisition prices for Q4 2025 cannot be performed due to a complete lack of sales activity in Scott County.

No SFR properties were purchased by landlords, traditional homeowners, or any other buyer type during the quarter, indicating a market-wide freeze on transactions.

Consequently, analyzing price gap trends or quarter-over-quarter price changes is not possible. The absence of data is itself a key indicator of extreme market inactivity.

Without transactions, it is impossible to determine if individual or company landlords pay different prices or to assess price appreciation from previous periods.

This halt in activity prevents any analysis of market pricing dynamics, a significant finding for a market with substantial investor presence.

The investor acquisition market in Scott County came to a complete standstill in Q4 2025, with landlords purchasing zero of the zero total SFRs sold.

This lack of activity was universal across all investor sizes; mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) made zero acquisitions, mirroring the zero purchases from larger investors.

The market saw no new entrants, as the number of new single-property landlords (Tier 01) for the quarter was zero, indicating a lack of confidence or opportunity for first-time investors.

The total absence of purchasing activity highlights a deeply illiquid or paused market, where no capital was deployed by any investor segment.

This inactivity contrasts with the substantial existing investor ownership, suggesting current holders are staying put while new buyers remain on the sidelines.

The investor landscape in Scott County is overwhelmingly dominated by small-scale landlords. Mom-and-pop investors (Tiers 01-04, holding 1-10 properties) own a combined 90.8% of all investor-held SFRs.

First-time or single-property landlords (Tier 01) form the bedrock of the market, alone controlling 249 properties, which represents a 53.5% majority share of the entire investor portfolio.

In stark contrast, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) have no footprint in Scott County, holding 0.0% of the market and underscoring its local, small-scale nature.

Mid-size landlords (11-1000 properties) hold the remaining 9.2% of the portfolio, with the 11-20 property tier being the most significant in this group at 9.0%.

This tier distribution reveals a highly fragmented market structure, heavily reliant on small, local capital rather than large, consolidated corporate ownership.

While individual investors dominate the overall market, companies establish a majority stake as portfolio sizes increase. The crossover point occurs in the 6-10 property tier, where companies own 28 properties (53.8%) compared to individuals' 24 properties (46.2%).

In the smallest tiers, individual ownership is overwhelming. Individuals own 215 of the 249 single-property portfolios (86.0%) and 25 of the 33 two-property portfolios (75.8%).

Even in the 11-20 property tier, individuals maintain a strong presence, holding 27 properties (64.3%) against 15 held by companies (35.7%), showing that the transition to corporate dominance is not absolute.

The 3-5 property tier also skews heavily towards individuals, who own 54 properties (61.4%) in this segment.

This pattern indicates that while individuals are the foundation of the market, corporate structures are the preferred vehicle for scaling portfolios beyond five properties in Scott County.

The geographic distribution of investor ownership in Scott County is extremely concentrated. A single zip code, 67871, accounts for 451 of the 452 investor-owned properties, representing 99.8% of the entire portfolio.

This hyper-localization demonstrates that investor strategy is focused on a very specific sub-market within the county.

Within the 67871 zip code, the investor ownership rate is a significant 28.5%, indicating a deep penetration in that community compared to other parts of the county.

The only other area with any recorded investor presence is the 67863 zip code, which has just one investor-owned property and an ownership rate of 7.1%.

This data reveals that investor activity is not evenly spread but is instead targeted with pinpoint accuracy on one primary geographic area.

An analysis of historical transaction trends in Scott County is not possible due to the absence of recorded buy or sell data for landlords.

This lack of data prevents the calculation of buy/sell ratios, making it impossible to determine if landlords have historically been net buyers or net sellers.

The percentage of transactions occurring between landlords cannot be assessed, obscuring insights into market liquidity and churn within the investor community.

Similarly, a comparison of average buy prices versus sell prices over time is not feasible, which means potential profit margins or market-timing strategies cannot be analyzed.

The complete unavailability of transaction history suggests a buy-and-hold market with very few properties changing hands among investors or being sold to other buyer types.

In Q4 2025, the investor transaction market in Scott County was entirely dormant, with landlords involved in zero of the zero total SFR transactions.

This complete inactivity was consistent across all portfolio sizes; mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) recorded zero transactions, and no activity was seen from any larger investor tiers.

Due to the absence of purchases, average acquisition prices by tier could not be calculated, preventing any analysis of pricing strategies between small and large investors.

No inter-landlord trading occurred during the quarter, as the number of properties bought from other landlords was zero for all tiers.

This data confirms a total market freeze in Q4 2025, with no properties being bought or sold by the county's significant investor base.