Union (KY) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

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

Market Overview

Total SFR Properties in Union (KY)
4,146
Total Investors in Union (KY)
1,016
Investor Owned SFR in Union (KY)
999(24.1%)
Individual Landlords
Landlords
894
SFR Owned
811
Corporate Landlords
Landlords
122
SFR Owned
210
Understanding Property Counts

Distinct Count Methodology: The total 999 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 Union County, Owning 93.4% of Rentals with Zero Institutional Presence
In Union County, KY, investors own 24.1% of the SFR market (999 properties), with 'mom-and-pop' landlords controlling a staggering 93.4% of that portfolio and zero institutional presence. In Q4, these small investors were net buyers (5.33x buy/sell ratio) and purchased 30.0% of homes sold, paying 12.3% less than traditional homeowners.
Landlord Owned Current Holdings
Landlords own 999 SFR properties in Union County, with individuals controlling a dominant 81.2% share.
Cash is the primary acquisition method, with 86.8% (867 properties) owned outright versus just 13.2% (132) being financed. The portfolio is highly focused on rentals, with 96.1% of properties classified as non-owner-occupied.
Landlord vs Traditional Homeowners
Landlords secured a 12.3% discount in Q4, paying $23,502 less than traditional homeowners per property.
The landlord purchasing advantage fluctuates significantly, from paying a 10.2% premium in Q2 to securing a massive 56.0% discount in Q3. The current 12.3% discount in Q4 marks a return to more typical purchasing patterns.
Current Quarter Purchases
Landlords captured 30.0% of the Union County market in Q4, purchasing 12 of the 40 available homes.
Small 'mom-and-pop' investors were responsible for 100% of all landlord acquisitions this quarter. The market saw 12 new single-property landlords enter, while institutional investors (1000+ properties) made zero purchases.
Ownership by Tier
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) overwhelmingly control 93.4% of investor-owned SFRs in Union County.
The market structure is dominated by the smallest investors, with single-property landlords alone holding 64.9% (672 properties) of the entire investor portfolio. Institutional investors (1000+ properties) have zero presence in Union County.
Ownership by Tier & Type
Companies become the majority owners at the 6-10 property tier, holding a 56.0% share.
While individuals dominate smaller portfolios, companies take majority control starting at the 6-10 property tier. Interestingly, individual ownership becomes dominant again in the 21-50 property tier (79.3%), suggesting different strategies at play.
Geographic Distribution
Investor activity is heavily concentrated in three zip codes: 42437, 42459, and 42461.
The zip code 42461 has the highest investor penetration at 38.8%, despite 42437 having the most investor-owned homes (430). This highlights a key difference between volume and market saturation.
Historical Transactions
Landlords in Union County are strong net buyers, acquiring 16 properties while selling only 3 in Q4 2025.
Landlords have consistently been accumulating properties, with a buy-to-sell ratio of 6.38x in 2025 and an even stronger 13.17x in 2024. Institutional investors recorded no transaction activity.
Current Quarter Transactions
Landlords participated in 25.8% of all Q4 market transactions, totaling 16 deals.
New single-property landlords paid the highest average price at $212,690. In contrast, small landlords in the 3-5 property tier acquired 66.7% of their properties from other landlords, suggesting they target existing rental inventory.

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 999 SFR properties in Union County, with individuals controlling a dominant 81.2% share.
Detailed Findings

Investors have a significant footprint in the Union County housing market, owning 999 single-family residential properties, which accounts for 24.1% of the total 4,146 SFRs in the area.

The ownership landscape is overwhelmingly composed of private individuals rather than corporations. Individual landlords own 811 properties, representing 81.2% of the investor-owned market, compared to 210 properties (21.0%) held by companies.

This individual dominance extends to the entity level, where 894 of the 1,016 total landlords (88.0%) are individuals, reinforcing the 'mom-and-pop' character of the local rental market.

A defining feature of this market is the high rate of cash ownership. A remarkable 86.8% of investor-owned properties (867 homes) are owned free and clear, with only a small fraction (13.2%) being financed.

The portfolio is clearly geared towards generating rental income, with 960 of the 999 properties (96.1%) being non-owner-occupied, indicating a professional, business-oriented approach even among small investors.

Acquisition Timing & Pricing

Comparison of acquisition prices between landlords and traditional homeowners

Key Insight
Landlords secured a 12.3% discount in Q4, paying $23,502 less than traditional homeowners per property.
Detailed Findings

In the most recent quarter, landlords demonstrated a distinct pricing advantage, paying an average of $167,779 for a property in Q4 2025. This is 12.3% less than the $191,281 paid by traditional homeowners, translating to a $23,502 discount per home.

The price gap between landlords and homeowners has been extremely volatile throughout the year. While landlords paid a 10.2% premium in Q2, they achieved an extraordinary 56.0% discount ($130,657) in Q3, suggesting opportunistic buying.

Overall property values for investor acquisitions have been appreciating. The average price paid in 2025 ($140,435) is notably higher than the average during the 2020-2023 period ($121,715), reflecting broad market trends.

The Q4 discount of 12.3% suggests a stabilization in the market compared to the wild swings observed in the second and third quarters, pointing towards a more predictable purchasing environment.

Despite the pricing fluctuations, the consistent ability to acquire properties at or below homeowner prices indicates that landlords in Union County are adept at identifying value and negotiating favorable terms.

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 captured 30.0% of the Union County market in Q4, purchasing 12 of the 40 available homes.
Detailed Findings

Landlords represented a major purchasing force in the Q4 2025 housing market, acquiring 12 of the 40 total SFRs sold in Union County for a 30.0% market share.

The entirety of this purchasing activity was driven by 'mom-and-pop' investors (1-10 properties), with zero acquisitions made by mid-size or institutional-scale landlords.

Market growth is being fueled by new entrants, as single-property landlords made up the largest group of buyers. This tier acquired 9 properties (75.0% of all landlord purchases) across 12 distinct new entities.

The data clearly shows that large-scale institutional investors were completely absent from the purchasing market in Q4, reinforcing that market dynamics are dictated by smaller, local players.

This concentration of activity among new and small landlords highlights a pattern of organic, grassroots growth in the local rental market rather than corporate consolidation.

Ownership by Purchase Tier

Distribution of investor-owned properties across portfolio size tiers

Key Insight
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) overwhelmingly control 93.4% of investor-owned SFRs in Union County.
Detailed Findings

The investor ownership structure in Union County is unequivocally dominated by small-scale operators. 'Mom-and-pop' landlords, defined as those owning 1-10 properties, control a combined 93.4% of all investor-held SFRs.

The single-property landlord tier is the bedrock of the market, alone accounting for 64.9% of all investor-owned housing with 672 properties.

In stark contrast to prevailing national narratives, institutional investors with portfolios exceeding 1,000 homes have absolutely no ownership stake (0.0%) in the Union County market.

Even mid-size investors (11-1000 properties) have a very small footprint, collectively owning just 6.6% of the investor portfolio, further emphasizing the market's highly fragmented nature.

This distribution reveals a market built on a wide base of individual investors rather than a consolidated structure controlled by a few large entities, suggesting a more community-based rental landscape.

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 owners at the 6-10 property tier, holding a 56.0% share.
Detailed Findings

Individual investors form the foundation of the market, representing the vast majority of owners in smaller portfolio tiers. They own 87.7% of single-property portfolios and over 75% of portfolios with 2 to 5 properties.

A significant shift occurs in the 6-10 property tier, which serves as the crossover point where companies (56.0%) become the majority property holders over individuals (44.0%).

This trend toward corporate ownership continues into the 11-20 property tier, where companies control a commanding 74.0% of the properties.

An unusual pattern emerges in the 21-50 property tier, where the trend reverses sharply and individuals once again become the dominant owners with a 79.3% share. This indicates the presence of a few, large-scale individual investors who have not incorporated.

This data illustrates a typical investor lifecycle: individuals start small, and as portfolios grow to 6+ properties, a shift toward a more formal corporate structure becomes common for liability and management purposes.

Geographic Distribution

Regional breakdown of investor activity and ownership patterns

Key Insight
Investor activity is heavily concentrated in three zip codes: 42437, 42459, and 42461.
Detailed Findings

Investor ownership in Union County is not evenly distributed, but instead highly concentrated in a few key areas. The top three zip codes—42437, 42459, and 42461—collectively account for 94.4% of all investor-owned SFRs.

The 42437 zip code is the leader in terms of sheer volume, hosting 430 investor-owned properties. However, this represents a 21.0% ownership rate for that specific area.

In contrast, the 42461 zip code is the most saturated market. While it has fewer properties (144), investors own a significant 38.8% of all single-family residences there.

The zip code 42459 shows both high volume and high saturation, with 369 investor properties and an ownership rate of 26.6%.

This distinction between the largest market (42437 by count) and the most investor-dense market (42461 by percentage) reveals different strategic focal points for investment within the county.

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 in Union County are strong net buyers, acquiring 16 properties while selling only 3 in Q4 2025.
Detailed Findings

Landlords are actively expanding their portfolios, posting a strong net-buyer position in Q4 2025. They purchased 16 properties while selling only 3, resulting in a buy-to-sell ratio of 5.33-to-1.

This accumulation strategy is a consistent, long-term trend. For the full year of 2025, landlords maintained a 6.38x buy-to-sell ratio (83 buys vs. 13 sells).

The net buying activity was even more pronounced in 2024, when landlords acquired 79 properties and sold just 6, an exceptionally high ratio of 13.17-to-1.

Purchase volume has remained remarkably stable year-over-year, with 83 acquisitions in 2025 nearly matching the 79 acquisitions from 2024, indicating steady, ongoing investment in the area.

Institutional investors with 1000+ properties were entirely absent from the transaction market, recording zero buys and zero sells across all timeframes.

Current Quarter Transactions

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

Key Insight
Landlords participated in 25.8% of all Q4 market transactions, totaling 16 deals.
Detailed Findings

In Q4 2025, landlord activity comprised a significant portion of the market, with investors involved in 16 of the 62 total SFR transactions, a share of 25.8%.

A distinct pricing pattern emerged among buyers: new, single-property investors paid the highest average price at $212,690. This is substantially more than the $52,333 and $65,000 paid by landlords in the 3-10 property tiers.

Sourcing strategies differ by investor size. Landlords in the 3-5 property tier appear to focus on acquiring existing rental stock, with 66.7% of their Q4 purchases coming from other landlords.

Conversely, new single-property investors sourced most of their homes from the open market, with only 16.7% of their acquisitions being inter-landlord transactions. This suggests they are more likely to compete with traditional homebuyers.

All 16 transactions were conducted by 'mom-and-pop' tiers, with institutional investors making no purchases, reinforcing that small investors are the sole drivers of transactional activity.

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 Dominate Union County, Owning 93.4% of Rentals with Zero Institutional Presence
Holdings
Investors own 999 SFR properties, representing 24.1% of the market in Union County, KY. Individual investors hold a commanding 81.2% of these properties (811 homes), compared to 21.0% (210 homes) owned by companies.
Pricing
In Q4, landlords purchased homes for 12.3% less than traditional homeowners, securing an average discount of $23,502 per property ($167,779 vs $191,281).
Activity
Landlords acquired 30.0% of all homes sold in Q4 (12 properties), with activity driven entirely by small investors. The market saw 12 new single-property landlords enter during the quarter.
Market Share
Small 'mom-and-pop' landlords (1-10 properties) control 93.4% of investor-owned housing in Union County. In sharp contrast, institutional investors (1000+ properties) have a 0.0% market share.
Ownership Type
While individual investors own the vast majority of small portfolios, companies become the majority owners in the 6-10 property tier, signaling a shift to formal business structures as portfolios grow.
Transactions
Landlords are aggressive net buyers with a 5.33-to-1 buy/sell ratio in Q4 (16 buys vs 3 sells). Institutional investors remained completely inactive, with zero transactions.
Market Narrative

The single-family rental market in Union County, KY is fundamentally a story of local, small-scale enterprise. Investors own 999 properties, comprising 24.1% of the county's total SFR housing stock. This landscape is overwhelmingly shaped by 'mom-and-pop' landlords (1-10 properties), who control a staggering 93.4% of the investor-owned inventory. Private individuals own 81.2% of these homes, and in a stark deviation from national headlines, institutional investors with 1,000+ properties have zero presence in the market.

Investor behavior in Union County is characterized by steady acquisition and savvy purchasing. In Q4 2025, landlords acquired 30.0% of all homes sold and demonstrated a clear pricing advantage, paying 12.3% less than traditional homeowners. They are consistently expanding their holdings, as shown by a strong 5.33-to-1 buy-to-sell ratio in the last quarter. Activity is driven by new entrants, with 12 new single-property landlords joining the market, who interestingly paid the highest prices, suggesting they compete directly with retail buyers for available homes.

The key takeaway for the Union County housing market is its stability and hyperlocal nature. The market is not driven by large corporations but by a broad base of nearly a thousand small investors who are consistently and patiently building their portfolios. The high rate of cash ownership (86.8%) further insulates the local rental market from national credit cycle volatility. This structure points to a mature, fragmented, and community-embedded rental ecosystem, distinct from the institutional-led markets in major metropolitan areas.

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 07:40 PM
Data PeriodQ4 2025
Geography LevelCounty
GeographyUnion (KY)
×
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 Section12 Transactions
Chart Section12 Transactions
×
Chart Section12 Prices
Chart Section12 Prices
×
Chart Section12 Prices Detail
Chart Section12 Prices Detail