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

In Harrison County, landlords collectively own 710 SFR properties, constituting a substantial 32.7% of the total 2,171 SFR properties in the market. This reveals a significant level of investor penetration within the county's housing stock.

The investor landscape is heavily dominated by individual landlords, who own 581 properties (81.8%) of the total landlord portfolio, contrasting with companies that hold 132 properties (18.6%). This highlights the prevalence of individual, rather than corporate, investment in the county.

Furthermore, the data indicates a strong preference for cash-based acquisitions among landlords, with all 710 investor-owned properties being held as cash and none financed. This suggests a low reliance on debt for property acquisition within this market.

The primary focus of these landlords is rental income, as 696 of the 710 investor-owned properties (98.0%) are non-owner-occupied and rented. This signifies Harrison County's strong position as a rental market for investors.

By entity count, individual landlords significantly outnumber company landlords by a ratio of 739 to 96, further reinforcing the mom-and-pop nature of the investor market in the county.

In a notable trend observed in 2025-Q2, landlords in Harrison County demonstrated a significant pricing advantage, acquiring SFR properties for an average of $185,000. This represents a substantial $55,133 (23.0%) discount compared to the average price paid by traditional homeowners, which stood at $240,133.

This pricing disparity in 2025-Q2 highlights landlords' ability to secure more favorable terms or identify undervalued assets compared to the broader market of traditional homebuyers.

However, comprehensive price trend analysis is significantly constrained by the lack of recorded purchase activity in other recent quarters, including Q4 2025, Q1 2025, and Q4 2024, where data indicates 0 properties acquired by either landlords or homeowners.

Similarly, data for longer-term trends, such as price appreciation from the 2020-2023 pandemic-era or year-over-year comparisons for 2024 and 2025, cannot be established due to the reported absence of acquisition transactions during those periods for Harrison County.

The limited data for other timeframes indicates that the 2025-Q2 pricing insight, while significant, should be viewed within the context of very low market transaction volume.

Harrison County experienced a complete absence of SFR purchase activity in Q4 2025, with 0 total SFR purchases recorded by either landlords or other buyers. This indicates a frozen market for real estate acquisitions during the quarter.

Consequently, landlords captured 0.0% of the market share for Q4 2025 purchases, as no transactions were reported for any investor type. This starkly contrasts with typical market activity.

Breaking down activity by investor size, there were no purchases by mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) or institutional investors (Tier 09) in Q4 2025, signaling a uniform halt across all investor tiers.

The lack of Q4 purchases also means zero new landlords (single-property, Tier 01) entered the market, reflecting a complete pause in new investor participation.

Without any purchase data for Q4 2025, it is impossible to identify which investor tiers, if any, demonstrated higher activity or what their average properties per entity were for the quarter.

This widespread inactivity in Q4 2025, as revealed by the data, suggests either a market slowdown specific to this county or a reporting anomaly, making it challenging to identify recent acquisition trends.

The investor-owned SFR market in Harrison County is overwhelmingly dominated by mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties), who collectively control 97.4% of all investor-owned properties, totaling 728 properties across Tiers 01-04. This highlights the foundational role of small-scale investors in the county's rental housing.

Specifically, single-property landlords (Tier 01) represent the largest segment, owning 537 properties, which accounts for 71.8% of the total investor-owned portfolio. This demonstrates that first-time and small-scale landlords are the primary drivers of investor activity and ownership.

In stark contrast to the mom-and-pop dominance, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) maintain a minimal footprint in the county, controlling just 2 properties, which equates to a mere 0.3% of the total investor-owned housing. This defies narratives of widespread institutional takeover in this particular market.

The distribution further shows that properties within Tiers 01-06 (1-50 properties) collectively account for 99.7% of all investor-owned SFR, reinforcing the market's strong orientation towards smaller, more local landlords rather than large-scale corporate entities.

Due to the absence of relevant data, it is not possible to analyze how acquisition prices vary by tier or how the overall tier distribution has evolved over time (e.g., comparing current distribution to past quarters or years).

While individual investors overwhelmingly dominate the smaller tiers, their majority shifts at Tier 04 (6-10 properties), where companies take majority control. In this tier, companies own 32 properties (72.7%), surpassing individual owners who hold 12 properties (27.3%).

This crossover point at Tier 04 is a critical insight, as individual investors remain dominant in Tiers 01 (87.8% individual vs 12.2% company), Tier 02 (78.0% individual vs 22.0% company), and Tier 03 (80.7% individual vs 19.3% company).

Interestingly, individual investors reclaim complete dominance in Tier 05 (11-20 properties), owning all 15 properties (100.0%), with no company presence reported in this size bracket. This suggests a varied and non-linear pattern of corporate vs. individual investment by portfolio size in Harrison County.

The absence of data for individual vs. company acquisition prices within each tier prevents an analysis of differing pricing strategies based on owner type and portfolio size.

Similarly, without historical data split by owner type and tier, it is not possible to determine how growth patterns or ownership concentrations have evolved over time for individual versus company investors.

The clear shift to company majority in Tier 04 indicates that as portfolios expand beyond 5 properties, the operational and financial structures favoring companies become more prevalent, though individual investors continue to operate substantial portfolios in Tier 05 and potentially higher.

Within Harrison County, the zip code MO-Harrison-64424 exhibits the highest concentration of investor-owned properties, totaling 369 SFR homes. This makes it the primary hub for landlord activity by volume, with investors owning 30.9% of its estimated 1,194 SFR properties.

In contrast, MO-Harrison-64458 shows the highest investor ownership rate, with landlords controlling 50.0% of its SFR housing, despite having a smaller portfolio of just 12 investor-owned properties. This highlights areas with significant landlord penetration regardless of absolute property counts.

MO-Harrison-64481 also shows significant investor presence, with 109 properties owned by landlords, representing a 44.0% ownership rate of its 248 SFR homes, making it another key area for investor activity.

The data reveals an interesting pattern where the region with the highest count of investor-owned properties (MO-Harrison-64424) does not necessarily have the highest ownership rate. Conversely, the region with the highest rate (MO-Harrison-64458) has a relatively low count, indicating distinct characteristics across sub-geographies.

Due to the absence of data, it is not possible to analyze how acquisition prices or landlord entities vary across these specific geographic regions within Harrison County.

A critical data gap exists in Harrison County regarding historical transaction patterns, as no buy or sell transaction counts are reported for all landlords across any timeframe provided. This completely limits analysis of market liquidity and investor sentiment.

Consequently, it is impossible to determine if landlords have been net buyers or sellers, or to calculate buy/sell ratios for overall investor activity. This leaves a significant blind spot in understanding past market dynamics.

Similarly, specific data for institutional investors (1000+ tier) is also entirely absent for all historical periods, making it impossible to assess their net position (accumulating vs. divesting) or their contribution to market transactions.

The absence of transaction volumes also precludes any analysis of the percentage of purchases originating from other landlords (inter-landlord trades) or how average buy prices compare to average sell prices to infer potential margins.

Therefore, any conclusions about historical transaction trends, volume changes over time, or distinct behaviors between institutional and overall landlord activity cannot be drawn from the provided data for Harrison County.

Harrison County reported zero total SFR transactions in Q4 2025, with landlords also registering no transactions. This signals a complete pause in both buying and selling activity for the quarter, reflecting an inactive market.

As a direct consequence, landlords held 0.0% of the market share for Q4 transactions, indicating that no SFR properties changed hands through investor channels during this period.

The absence of transaction data means that average purchase prices by tier cannot be determined for Q4 2025, preventing any insights into potential pricing strategies or price spreads between different investor sizes.

Furthermore, without any recorded transactions, the percentage of properties bought from other landlords (inter-landlord trading activity) remains at 0.0%, indicating no internal market liquidity among investors in Q4.

Both mom-and-pop landlords (Tier 01-04) and institutional investors (Tier 09) reported zero transactions, underscoring a uniform lack of activity across all investor tiers in the most recent quarter.

The complete absence of Q4 transaction data implies a significant market slowdown or data reporting gap specific to Harrison County for this period, making it impossible to assess recent transaction dynamics or compare tier activity to ownership distribution.