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

Landlords in Union County, MS, own a total of 122 SFR properties, representing 11.5% of the 1,065 total SFR properties in the market. This indicates a moderate level of investor penetration in the local housing market, predominantly driven by smaller players.

Individual investors significantly outweigh company entities in ownership, holding 100 SFR properties (82.0%) compared to companies owning only 22 properties (18.0%). This highlights the strong presence of mom-and-pop landlords as the primary property owners.

The overall landlord landscape is heavily skewed towards individual landlords by entity count, with 132 individual landlords for every 21 company landlords, demonstrating a 6.28:1 ratio of individual to company entities.

The vast majority of landlord holdings are explicitly dedicated to rental purposes, with 121 properties actively rented, confirming a strong rental market focus for local investors.

Cash purchases represent a prominent investment strategy, with 99 landlord-owned properties acquired via cash, significantly outnumbering properties purchased with financing (23). This suggests a preference for lower leverage among investors or a high availability of liquid capital.

While 121 properties are rented, the remaining properties are either vacant or transitioning, showing a highly utilized portfolio. The high prevalence of cash acquisitions also indicates a stable, less indebted investor base focused on long-term income generation.

Comprehensive analysis of landlord acquisition prices in Union County, MS, is currently unfeasible due to a critical lack of recent purchasing data for Q4 2025 and earlier quarters. This significant data gap prevents a full understanding of current market dynamics or pricing advantages.

The only historical landlord acquisition data available indicates 0 properties were purchased between 2020-2023 at an average price of $141,957. Without a corresponding volume of acquisitions, this single data point cannot be used to establish a reliable baseline or trend.

Without current quarter data for both landlords and traditional homeowners, it is impossible to determine any pricing advantage or discount landlords may have in the local market. This obscures a key aspect of investor behavior and market competitiveness.

The absence of acquisition data broken down by individual versus company landlords further limits insight into differing purchasing power or investment strategies between owner types in Union County, leaving key questions unanswered.

Consequently, assessing quarter-over-quarter price gap changes or overall price appreciation trends from the pandemic era to current times is not possible with the available dataset, leaving a void in understanding market evolution.

The extremely sparse acquisition data signals either very low transaction volume in the analyzed periods or an issue with data capture for Union County, MS, making it difficult to draw any firm conclusions about investor buying activity.

In Q4 2025, Union County, MS, experienced a complete halt in reported SFR purchases, with 0 total transactions recorded. This translates directly to 0 landlord acquisitions, indicating a profound pause in market activity for the quarter.

Given the absence of any purchases, landlords secured 0.0% of the market share, as no transactions occurred for either landlords or non-landlords during Q4 2025.

Consequently, it is impossible to identify which investor tiers, if any, were most active in purchasing or to determine the percentage of acquisitions contributed by mom-and-pop versus institutional landlords. All purchase counts by tier are 0.

The data indicates 0 new single-property landlords (Tier 01) entered the market in Q4, reflecting the pervasive inactivity in acquisitions across all segments of the investor market.

Without any Q4 purchase activity, no insights can be drawn regarding the number of active entities per tier or their average properties per entity for this specific quarter, hindering an understanding of recent investment intensity.

The complete lack of Q4 purchase data suggests either a dormant market in Union County during this period or a data collection anomaly that precludes any analysis of recent buying trends and investor interest.

Union County's investor-owned SFR market is overwhelmingly dominated by mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04), who collectively control an exceptional 98.4% of all investor properties. This highlights a highly localized and small-scale investment landscape.

Single-property landlords (Tier 01) represent the backbone of the market, owning 108 properties, which accounts for a substantial 87.8% of the entire investor-owned SFR portfolio, underscoring the prevalence of entry-level investment.

In stark contrast to national trends and media narratives, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) hold no properties in Union County, registering a 0.0% share of the investor-owned market, indicating an absence of large-scale corporate investment.

The ownership distribution reveals a rapid decline in property ownership as portfolio size increases; for instance, two-property landlords (Tier 02) hold only 6 properties (4.9%), further emphasizing the predominantly small-scale nature of investments.

Due to the limited transaction data and the absence of pricing breakdowns by tier in the provided summary, it is not possible to analyze how acquisition prices vary across different investor tiers or if larger investors secure different pricing.

The current ownership distribution, heavily weighted towards smaller portfolios, suggests that the Union County market has not experienced significant consolidation by larger investors over time, maintaining its mom-and-pop character.

The most concentrated activity is clearly in the single-property tier, indicating that entry into the rental market is primarily through individual, smaller-scale investments rather than expansion by larger entities, or that data for larger entities is incomplete.

While individual investors overwhelmingly dominate the entry-level Tier 01 (single-property) with 98 properties (90.7%), company ownership gains significant traction and becomes the majority in slightly larger portfolios within Union County.

A clear crossover point emerges between Tier 01 and Tier 02, where companies become the majority owners. In the two-property tier, companies hold 4 properties (66.7%) compared to individuals' 2 properties (33.3%).

This trend continues into the small landlord (3-5 properties) tier, where companies own 3 properties (75.0%) versus individuals' 1 property (25.0%), suggesting a corporate preference for structuring portfolios beyond single holdings.

The highest concentration of individual ownership is unequivocally found in Tier 01, reinforcing the mom-and-pop model as the primary entry point for new market participants.

Conversely, the highest company concentration appears in the 3-5 property tier, indicating that as portfolios grow from one to several properties, they are more likely to be managed under a company entity in Union County.

Due to the absence of specific acquisition pricing data by owner type within each tier, it is not possible to analyze whether individuals or companies secure better prices for similar portfolio sizes, limiting insights into their respective purchasing power.

The available data does not provide insights into the growth patterns by owner type (all-time vs Q4), making it challenging to identify recent shifts in individual or company investment velocity or strategic expansion.

Investor-owned properties within Union County, MS, are highly concentrated in the MS-Union-38652 sub-region, which accounts for 104 properties. This makes it the area with the most significant volume of investor-owned SFRs.

While MS-Union-38652 leads in total investor-owned properties with a 11.4% ownership rate, MS-Union-38824 exhibits the highest investor ownership rate at 20.0%. This suggests a higher penetration of investors in MS-Union-38824, even if its total property count is not listed in this summary.

MS-Union-38828 ranks second in property count with 8 investor-owned SFRs and a 10.8% ownership rate, showing a considerable difference in scale compared to the dominant MS-Union-38652 sub-region.

MS-Union-38849 reports only 1 investor-owned property but maintains an 11.1% ownership rate, highlighting varying scales and market dynamics even within a single county's sub-regions.

The data shows a clear distinction between regions with high investor property counts and those with high investor ownership rates, indicating that raw volume doesn't always correlate with market penetration across all sub-geographies.

The provided data for MS-Union-38871 and MS-Union-38663 contains 'nan' values, rendering an analysis of their investor property counts and rates impossible, which limits a comprehensive county-wide assessment.

Due to the absence of acquisition price data for specific sub-regions in `section10.csv`, it is not possible to determine how prices vary across these different geographic areas within Union County, preventing insights into regional market value differentials.

A comprehensive analysis of historical landlord transaction patterns in Union County, MS, is prevented by the complete absence of data in the `section11-1.csv` and `section11-2.csv` summaries. This data void makes it impossible to draw any conclusions regarding past market movements.

Without any buy and sell transaction counts, it is impossible to determine whether landlords in Union County have historically been net buyers or net sellers of SFR properties, or to calculate any meaningful buy/sell ratios. This leaves the overall market direction ambiguous.

The data similarly provides no insight into the transaction behavior of institutional investors (1000+ tier), meaning their net position (accumulating or divesting) cannot be assessed for any timeframe. This obscures their role, if any, in the local market.

Crucially, the percentages of inter-landlord buy and sell transactions cannot be calculated, leaving a significant gap in understanding market liquidity and internal trading dynamics within the investor community.

With no recorded average buy or sell prices, it is also not possible to infer potential profit margins or compare pricing strategies across different transaction types over time, further limiting financial insights.

The lack of data across all listed timeframes (Q4, Q3, earlier quarters, annual, all-time) for both overall landlords and institutional players makes it impossible to identify any evolving trends or shifts in transaction volumes and prices.

This pervasive data void strongly suggests that either there has been minimal historical transaction activity among landlords in Union County, or there is a significant issue with data availability for this specific geography, hindering any data-driven analysis.

For Q4 2025, Union County, MS, recorded 0 total SFR transactions, which naturally resulted in 0 landlord transactions and a landlord market share of 0.0%. This indicates a complete cessation of recorded sales activity within the market.

Consequently, transaction volumes across all investor tiers were 0, making it impossible to analyze which tiers were most active or how their transaction activity compares to their overall ownership distribution within the county.

With no purchases occurring, there is no data to establish average purchase prices by tier or to determine which investor sizes might pay more or less for properties. All tier average prices are uniformly reported as $0.

The complete lack of transactions also means there was 0 inter-landlord trading activity, thus preventing any analysis of landlords buying properties from other landlords within the quarter or assessing market liquidity.

The absence of any transactional data for Q4 2025 means no price spread between tiers can be calculated, nor can any tier be identified as having a higher inter-landlord purchase percentage.

Both mom-and-pop (Tier 01-04) and institutional (Tier 09) investor groups recorded 0 transactions in Q4, highlighting the pervasive inactivity across all investor segments in Union County for this period.

This profound lack of Q4 transaction data for Union County, MS, suggests either an extremely stagnant market during the period or a data reporting limitation that prevents insights into recent buying and selling behaviors.