Andrew (MO) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

Andrew County's SFR market sees 1,199 properties, or 19.8% of all SFR, controlled by investors, highlighting a significant landlord presence within the local housing landscape. This proportion underscores the importance of investor activity in shaping the county's housing supply and rental market.

Individual landlords overwhelmingly dominate the investor segment, owning 923 properties (77.0%) compared to companies which hold 276 properties (23.0%). This pattern extends to entity counts, with 1,007 individual landlords against 156 company landlords, demonstrating that the vast majority of rental housing providers are small, independent operators.

The composition of landlord portfolios reveals a strong preference for cash acquisitions, with 1,072 properties purchased outright compared to a mere 127 properties that are financed. This indicates a focus on reducing debt leverage and potentially streamlining the acquisition process for investors in the county.

A striking 1,148 of the 1,199 investor-owned properties are designated as rented, confirming that landlords primarily acquire these SFR units for income generation through leasing rather than other uses. This high rental rate indicates a robust and active rental market in Andrew County.

The substantial share of individual landlords, both in property count (77.0%) and entity count (86.6% of 1,163 total landlords), strongly counters the widespread narrative of corporate dominance in the SFR market, at least within this specific county. This illustrates that mom-and-pop investors remain the backbone of Andrew County's rental housing supply.

Comparing the 1,072 cash purchases to the 127 financed properties highlights a pronounced financial strategy among Andrew County landlords, favoring outright ownership over leveraged investments. This approach may reflect a conservative investment philosophy or a response to prevailing financing conditions.

In Q4 2025, Andrew County landlords acquired properties at an average price of $219,500, which was a $12,700 premium (6.1%) compared to traditional homeowners who paid $206,800. This suggests that in the current quarter, landlords are willing to pay above market rates for target properties.

The landlord-homeowner price gap has shown extreme volatility throughout 2025. Landlords paid a 28.8% premium in Q1 ($171,900 vs $133,450), followed by an extraordinary 81.7% discount in Q2 ($37,500 vs $204,509), and then a 19.1% premium in Q3 ($149,200 vs $125,317), culminating in the 6.1% premium in Q4.

The Q2 period stands out dramatically, where landlords secured properties for an astonishing $167,009 less than homeowners, paying only $37,500 against homeowner's $204,509. This could indicate specific distressed sales or unique acquisition strategies by the few active landlords during that quarter.

While landlords often seek discounts, the Q4 data indicates a shift where they are paying a premium, albeit a smaller one compared to Q1 and Q3. The $12,700 (6.1%) premium in Q4 suggests a competitive buying environment where landlords are not necessarily getting deals.

Overall, the annual trend for 2025 in Andrew County shows no consistent pattern of landlords paying either more or less than homeowners; instead, the pricing dynamics have fluctuated wildly quarter-to-quarter, with landlords experiencing both significant discounts and premiums.

The average acquisition price for landlords has ranged from $37,500 in Q2 to $219,500 in Q4, demonstrating a wide spectrum of property values or market conditions influencing investor purchases within the year.

Landlords in Andrew County accounted for a significant 20.0% of all SFR purchases in Q4 2025, acquiring 4 out of 20 total properties sold. This indicates that a notable portion of the housing market activity is driven by investor interest, impacting overall market dynamics.

Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) were the primary drivers of Q4 investor activity, responsible for 75.0% of all landlord purchases (3 properties). This highlights their ongoing importance in the county's real estate investment landscape, outpacing larger entities.

The single-property tier (Tier 01) alone accounted for all mom-and-pop purchases, with 3 properties acquired by 3 distinct entities. This signifies a noticeable influx of new, small-scale landlords entering the market, potentially for their first investment properties.

Despite the dominance of smaller investors, a single institutional investor (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) made 1 purchase in Q4, representing 25.0% of landlord acquisitions. This shows that institutional capital, though less frequent, continues to play a role in the market.

The concentration of Q4 purchases in the smallest tier (Tier 01) underscores a grassroots growth in the landlord sector, where individual investors are actively expanding or initiating their portfolios.

The ratio of 3 entities purchasing 3 properties in Tier 01 means an average of 1 property per entity, as expected for this tier, confirming the entry of genuinely new, single-property landlords.

The relatively low overall volume of landlord purchases (4 properties) in Q4 suggests a cautious or highly selective approach by investors in Andrew County, even as they secure a fifth of the total market purchases.

Mom-and-pop landlords, encompassing those with 1 to 10 properties (Tiers 01-04), overwhelmingly dominate the SFR investor market in Andrew County, controlling a staggering 92.4% of all investor-owned properties, totaling 1,168 units. This clearly demonstrates the market's reliance on small-scale investors.

The single-property landlord tier (Tier 01) is the most significant segment, holding 734 properties, which represents 58.1% of the total investor-owned SFR. This highlights the foundational role of first-time or minimal landlords in the county's rental housing supply.

In stark contrast to the mom-and-pop dominance, institutional investors (Tier 09), defined as owning 1000+ properties, hold only 1 property, constituting a negligible 0.1% of the investor-owned market. This definitively refutes the perception of large corporate control in Andrew County.

Mid-size landlords, those with 11 to 100 properties (Tiers 05-07), collectively own 95 properties, making up 7.6% of the investor-owned market. This small-to-medium segment plays a supporting role but is far from challenging mom-and-pop prevalence.

The distribution of properties by tier in Andrew County reveals a highly fragmented market where small landlords are the primary operators, with diminishing property counts as portfolio sizes increase. This structure suggests a local market primarily served by community-based investors.

The extreme concentration in the lowest tiers (Tiers 01-04) indicates that barriers to entry for new, small-scale landlords remain low, or that the market primarily attracts individual investors looking for a single or a few rental units.

The absence of price data by tier in this section prevents an analysis of whether larger investors pay more or less for properties, but the ownership distribution clearly paints a picture of a locally-driven, small-investor market.

Individual investors maintain a commanding presence across the smaller and medium-sized portfolio tiers in Andrew County, holding 87.3% of single-property (Tier 01) units and gradually decreasing to 63.3% in the 11-20 property tier. This underscores their widespread engagement in smaller-scale rental operations.

The definitive crossover point where company ownership surpasses individual ownership occurs within the Small-medium (21-50) tier. Here, companies own a vast majority of 44 properties (97.8%), while individuals hold only 1 property (2.2%), indicating a clear shift towards corporate control in larger portfolios.

Company concentration steadily increases with portfolio size: starting at a modest 12.7% in Tier 01, growing to 27.5% in the 3-5 property tier, 35.8% in the 6-10 property tier, and 36.7% in the 11-20 property tier before surging dramatically in the 21-50 tier.

The highest concentration of individual ownership is observed in the Single-property (Tier 01) segment at 87.3%, highlighting that the entry point into real estate investment in Andrew County is overwhelmingly dominated by individuals.

This data reveals a bifurcated market structure: smaller portfolios are primarily the domain of individual landlords, likely mom-and-pop operators, while larger, more substantial portfolios begin to fall under the purview of company entities.

While specific pricing by owner type within tiers is not provided, the ownership distribution clearly illustrates how company strategies begin to outweigh individual efforts as portfolio scale expands, indicating different operational models and financial capacities.

The limited data for very large tiers in this section means a complete picture of institutional ownership breakdown by individual vs company isn't fully available, but the trend of increasing company share with size is unmistakable up to the 21-50 tier.

Within Andrew County, MO-Andrew-64485 exhibits the highest volume of investor-owned properties, totaling 481 units, which constitutes a 17.7% investor ownership rate. This sub-geography represents a significant hub for landlord activity by property count.

While MO-Andrew-64485 leads in sheer property count, MO-Andrew-64421 demonstrates the highest investor ownership concentration, with 36.2% of its SFR properties owned by landlords, despite a lower total of 104 investor-owned units. This signals a higher market penetration by investors in this specific area.

The top three regions by investor-owned count — MO-Andrew-64485 (481), MO-Andrew-64505 (204), and MO-Andrew-64421 (104) — together account for 789 properties, highlighting distinct pockets of investor concentration within the county.

A notable divergence exists between regions with high investor property counts and those with high investor ownership percentages. For example, MO-Andrew-64485 has nearly five times more investor-owned properties than MO-Andrew-64421 (481 vs 104) but a significantly lower ownership rate (17.7% vs 36.2%).

Other high-penetration zones include MO-Andrew-64423 with 33.3% investor ownership and MO-Andrew-64480 with 31.5%, demonstrating that over a third of the housing stock in these areas is designated for investment purposes.

The data indicates localized investment strategies within Andrew County, with certain zip codes showing a high saturation of investor activity, while others attract a higher volume of investor purchases but maintain a lower overall investor footprint.

Due to the provided data, average acquisition prices across these specific geographic regions are not available, preventing an analysis of price variations influencing regional investment appeal.

Andrew County landlords are overwhelmingly net buyers in 2025, demonstrating a strong intent to expand their portfolios. Across the year, they completed 23 buy transactions against only 1 sell transaction, resulting in a net accumulation of 22 properties.

The buy-to-sell ratio for all landlords in 2025 stands at an impressive 23:1, signifying a market where investors are actively acquiring assets rather than divesting. This strong net buying position indicates confidence in the local real estate market.

During Q2 2025, this trend was clearly established, with landlords buying 7 properties and selling only 1, leading to a net gain of 6 properties in that quarter alone. This shows consistent growth in landlord holdings throughout the year.

The absence of specific data on landlord-to-landlord transactions in this section prevents an analysis of internal market liquidity or turnover between investors.

No transaction data was provided for institutional investors (1000+ tier) in this section, making it impossible to compare their net position or activity against the overall landlord market.

The observed net buying behavior suggests that landlords perceive ongoing value and rental demand in Andrew County, prompting them to increase their property holdings rather than selling them off.

The very low number of sell transactions (only 1 for the entire year) implies that landlords in this county are long-term holders, less prone to quick turnovers or market timing.

Landlords in Andrew County participated in 4 transactions during Q4 2025, accounting for 16.0% of the total 25 SFR transactions. This shows a notable, albeit contained, level of investor activity influencing the quarter's market dynamics.

A significant pricing disparity emerged in Q4, with institutional investors (Tier 09) acquiring properties for an average of $107,900, a substantial 67.4% less than single-property landlords (Tier 01) who paid $331,100. This $223,200 difference highlights distinct acquisition strategies or property types targeted by different investor tiers.

Mom-and-pop landlords (Tier 01-04), specifically single-property buyers, were responsible for 3 of the 4 landlord transactions in Q4, further cementing their role as the most active investor segment in the county.

Remarkably, both single-property (Tier 01) and institutional (Tier 09) landlords reported 0.0% of their Q4 purchases were sourced from other landlords. This suggests that the limited Q4 transactions primarily involved new inventory or properties from traditional homeowners, rather than inter-investor trading.

The institutional investor's ability to acquire properties at such a significant discount ($107,900 vs $331,100 for Tier 01) points to their potentially superior negotiation power, access to off-market deals, or focus on lower-priced, perhaps distressed or different asset quality, properties.

The distribution of transactions aligns with the overall ownership patterns seen in Andrew County, where smaller investors are more numerous and thus contribute more frequently to transaction volumes than larger, more selective entities.

The low overall transaction volume for landlords in Q4 (4 transactions) suggests a relatively quiet quarter for investor activity in Andrew County, but the price discrepancy between tiers reveals underlying market segmentation in property acquisition.