Pierce (ND) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

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

Market Overview

Total SFR Properties in Pierce (ND)
1,329
Total Investors in Pierce (ND)
372
Investor Owned SFR in Pierce (ND)
292(22.0%)
Individual Landlords
Landlords
360
SFR Owned
284
Corporate Landlords
Landlords
12
SFR Owned
12
Understanding Property Counts

Distinct Count Methodology: The total 292 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

Pierce County's investor market is 100% controlled by local mom-and-pop landlords as Q4 activity freezes
Investors own 292 single-family properties in Pierce County, representing 22.0% of the market. This ownership is entirely concentrated among mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties), with individuals holding 97.3% of the portfolio. Following a period of net buying in 2024, investor purchasing activity came to a complete halt in Q4 2025.
Landlord Owned Current Holdings
Investors own 292 SFRs in Pierce County; individuals hold a commanding 97.3% of them.
The vast majority of investor-owned properties are held free and clear, with 238 cash properties versus only 54 financed. Of the 372 total landlords, 360 are individuals, outnumbering companies 30 to 1.
Landlord vs Traditional Homeowners
Low transaction volume in Pierce County creates extreme price volatility, with no reliable discount trend.
Based on sparse data, landlords saw a 75.3% discount versus homeowners in Q3 2025 ($50,000 vs $202,292) but paid a 71.5% premium in Q2 2025 ($223,333 vs $130,250). The lack of consistent transactions makes it impossible to identify a stable price gap.
Current Quarter Purchases
Investor purchasing activity in Pierce County came to a complete halt in Q4 2025.
With zero properties purchased by landlords in Q4 2025, their market share of new acquisitions was 0%. Consequently, mom-and-pop and institutional investors alike recorded no new purchases during this period.
Ownership by Tier
Mom-and-pop landlords represent 100% of investor ownership in Pierce County, with zero institutional presence.
Single-property landlords form the bedrock of the market, controlling 227 properties, or 73.7% of all investor-owned housing. The remaining share is held by other small landlords owning 2-10 properties.
Ownership by Tier & Type
Individual investors overwhelmingly control every ownership tier in Pierce County's hyper-local market.
Companies have a negligible footprint, owning just 10 properties in total, all within the single-property tier. Individuals account for 100% of ownership in the 2-property and 3-5 property tiers.
Geographic Distribution
Investor activity in Pierce County is highly concentrated, with zip code 58368 holding 224 properties.
While one zip code dominates by count, smaller areas show higher penetration rates. Zip codes 58313 (56.0%) and 58384 (54.2%) have the highest investor ownership percentages in the county.
Historical Transactions
Landlords in Pierce County were net buyers in 2024, acquiring 4 properties for every 1 they sold.
In 2024, landlords purchased 16 properties while selling only 4, indicating a clear strategy of portfolio expansion during that year. There is no institutional transaction data, as this tier is not active in the county.
Current Quarter Transactions
Investor transaction activity was nonexistent in Q4 2025, with landlords accounting for 0% of market transactions.
No transactions were recorded across any investor tier, from single-property landlords to larger portfolios. This indicates a quiet quarter with no inter-landlord trading or new acquisitions from outside the investor pool.

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
Investors own 292 SFRs in Pierce County; individuals hold a commanding 97.3% of them.
Detailed Findings

In Pierce County, investors hold a significant 22.0% share of the single-family residential market, owning 292 out of 1,329 total properties.

The market is overwhelmingly dominated by individual investors, who own 284 properties, accounting for 97.3% of the entire investor-owned portfolio. Company ownership is minimal, with just 12 properties (4.1%).

This individual dominance is also reflected in the entity count, where 360 out of 372 landlords (96.8%) are individuals, highlighting a market driven by small-scale, local participants rather than corporate entities.

A strong preference for all-cash ownership is evident, with 238 properties held without financing. This is more than four times the number of financed properties (54), suggesting a low-leverage investment strategy is prevalent among local landlords.

The portfolio is clearly rental-focused, with 282 of the 292 properties classified as rented, indicating that 96.6% of the investor-owned housing stock is actively serving the local rental market.

Acquisition Timing & Pricing

Comparison of acquisition prices between landlords and traditional homeowners

Key Insight
Low transaction volume in Pierce County creates extreme price volatility, with no reliable discount trend.
Detailed Findings

Pricing analysis in Pierce County is characterized by extreme volatility due to a very low number of transactions, making it difficult to establish stable trends.

In Q3 2025, the data shows landlords acquired property for an average of $50,000, a staggering 75.3% discount compared to the homeowner average of $202,292. This represents a cash difference of $152,292 per property.

However, this trend completely reversed in the prior quarter. In Q2 2025, landlords paid an average of $223,333, a 71.5% premium over the homeowner price of $130,250, indicating that individual property characteristics heavily skew the averages in this low-volume market.

The dramatic swing from a large premium to a large discount within a single quarter underscores the unreliability of price gap analysis in a market with infrequent investor activity.

There were no recorded landlord acquisitions in Q4 2025, Q1 2025, or Q4 2024, further highlighting the sporadic nature of investor purchasing in the county.

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

Key Insight
Investor purchasing activity in Pierce County came to a complete halt in Q4 2025.
Detailed Findings

The fourth quarter of 2025 was marked by a complete freeze in investor acquisition activity in Pierce County, with landlords purchasing zero of the 1 single-family properties sold.

This lack of activity means that mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04), who constitute the entirety of the local investor base, made no new additions to their portfolios.

Similarly, institutional investors (Tier 09) remained absent from the market, recording zero purchases and maintaining their 0.0% share of both quarterly activity and overall ownership.

The data indicates no new landlords entered the market in Q4, as there were no purchases recorded in the single-property (Tier 01) category.

This pause in purchasing across all investor tiers signals a significant slowdown in market velocity and a potential wait-and-see approach from local investors heading into the new year.

Ownership by Purchase Tier

Distribution of investor-owned properties across portfolio size tiers

Key Insight
Mom-and-pop landlords represent 100% of investor ownership in Pierce County, with zero institutional presence.
Detailed Findings

The investor landscape in Pierce County is exclusively composed of mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties), who control 100.0% of the 292 investor-owned SFRs.

First-time or single-holding investors are the most significant group, with the single-property tier alone accounting for 227 properties, a commanding 73.7% majority of all investor-held housing.

The rest of the market is filled out by other small-scale investors, with two-property landlords holding 34 properties (11.0%) and those with 3-5 properties holding 45 (14.6%).

There is a complete absence of mid-size (11-1,000 properties) and institutional (1,000+ properties) investors, demonstrating that the market is not on the radar of large-scale corporate owners.

This ownership structure highlights a hyper-localized market, reliant on small, community-based landlords rather than outside investment capital.

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
Individual investors overwhelmingly control every ownership tier in Pierce County's hyper-local market.
Detailed Findings

Individual investors are the dominant force across every active ownership tier in Pierce County, reinforcing the market's mom-and-pop character.

In the largest tier, single-property landlords, individuals own 219 of the 227 properties (95.6%). The 10 properties owned by companies in this tier represent the entirety of corporate ownership in the county's SFR market.

Ownership becomes exclusively individual in larger portfolio sizes. Landlords with two properties (34 total) and those with 3-5 properties (45 total) are 100.0% individual-owned.

Given the complete dominance of individuals, there is no 'crossover point' where companies become the majority owners; corporate ownership is a fringe element of this market.

This data illustrates a market where investment is personal and small-scale, with no evidence of corporate consolidation at any portfolio level.

Geographic Distribution

Regional breakdown of investor activity and ownership patterns

Key Insight
Investor activity in Pierce County is highly concentrated, with zip code 58368 holding 224 properties.
Detailed Findings

Geographic analysis reveals that investor ownership in Pierce County is not evenly distributed, with the vast majority of properties concentrated in a single area. The zip code 58368 is the clear hub, containing 224 of the 292 investor-owned properties.

In contrast to the leader in raw count, other zip codes exhibit the highest rates of investor saturation. The area of 58313 leads in this regard, with investors owning 56.0% of the local housing stock (14 properties).

Similarly, zip code 58384 shows a high concentration, with an investor ownership rate of 54.2%, followed by 58385 at 48.8%.

This highlights a key pattern: the areas with the highest number of investor properties are not necessarily the same as those with the highest percentage of investor ownership.

The data points to distinct pockets of high rental density within the county, likely corresponding to small towns or specific neighborhoods with higher demand for rental housing.

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
Key Insight
Landlords in Pierce County were net buyers in 2024, acquiring 4 properties for every 1 they sold.
Detailed Findings

Historical transaction data from 2024 shows that landlords in Pierce County were actively expanding their portfolios, behaving as strong net buyers.

During 2024, investors executed 16 purchase transactions compared to only 4 sales, resulting in a net gain of 12 properties and a buy-to-sell ratio of 4-to-1.

This period of accumulation in 2024 stands in stark contrast to the complete halt in purchasing observed in Q4 2025, suggesting a significant shift in market dynamics or investor sentiment over the past year.

There were no recorded transactions for institutional investors (1,000+ properties), which is consistent with their 0.0% ownership share in the county.

The available data focuses solely on the activity of mom-and-pop landlords, who drive all transaction volume in this market.

Current Quarter Transactions

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

Key Insight
Investor transaction activity was nonexistent in Q4 2025, with landlords accounting for 0% of market transactions.
Detailed Findings

In Q4 2025, the investor market in Pierce County was dormant, with landlords involved in zero of the 1 total SFR transactions recorded.

This lack of activity was universal across all tiers, with no purchases or sales reported by any investor group, from the smallest single-property landlords to the largest portfolios in the county.

Consequently, there was no inter-landlord trading during the quarter, as the number of properties bought from other landlords was zero.

The average purchase price for all active tiers was $0, reflecting the absence of any transactional data for the period.

This complete standstill in Q4 contrasts with the net buying activity seen in 2024, pointing to a significant deceleration in the local real estate investment cycle.

Ready to leverage this data for your real estate investment decisions?

TALK TO AN EXPERT

Executive Summary

Pierce County's housing market is 100% controlled by mom-and-pop landlords as investor purchasing activity halted in Q4.
Holdings
In Pierce County, landlords own 292 SFR properties, comprising 22.0% of the total market. The portfolio is almost entirely held by individual investors, who own 284 properties (97.3%) compared to just 12 (4.1%) owned by companies.
Pricing
The low volume of transactions in Pierce County creates extreme price volatility, preventing the identification of a reliable landlord discount. For example, landlords paid 75.3% below homeowners in Q3 2025 but 71.5% above them in Q2 2025.
Activity
Investor acquisition activity completely stopped in Q4 2025, with landlords responsible for 0 of the 1 purchases. This halt in activity meant no new landlords entered the market during the quarter.
Market Share
Small mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) have absolute control, owning 100.0% of all investor housing in Pierce County. Institutional investors (1,000+ properties) have zero presence in this market.
Ownership Type
Individual investors dominate entirely, owning 97.3% of the properties. Companies have a minimal presence, with their 10 total properties all falling within the single-property landlord tier.
Transactions
While landlords were net buyers in 2024 with a 4-to-1 buy/sell ratio (16 buys vs 4 sells), all purchasing activity ceased by Q4 2025. Institutional investors are not active and have no transaction history in the county.
Market Narrative

The single-family rental market in Pierce County, North Dakota, is a closed ecosystem dominated entirely by small, local investors. Landlords own 292 properties, a notable 22.0% of the county's total SFR housing stock. This market structure definitively counters the narrative of corporate consolidation, with 100.0% of investor properties held by mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) and a staggering 97.3% of holdings owned by individuals rather than companies.

Investor behavior in this hyper-local market has shifted dramatically. After a period of active acquisition in 2024, where landlords acted as net buyers with a 4-to-1 buy/sell ratio, purchasing activity came to a complete standstill in Q4 2025. Pricing data is too volatile to be reliable due to the extremely low transaction volume, highlighting a market driven by individual deals rather than broad trends. The preference for stability is clear, with over four times as many properties held in cash (238) as with financing (54).

The key takeaway for Pierce County is its insulation from larger, national real estate trends. The market is defined by its lack of institutional presence and its reliance on a small base of individual owners. The recent freeze in investor activity suggests a mature or saturated local rental market where opportunities for acquisition have become scarce, prompting existing landlords to hold their positions rather than expand.

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 19, 2026 at 02:40 AM
Data PeriodQ4 2025
Geography LevelCounty
GeographyPierce (ND)
×
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 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