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

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

Market Overview

Total SFR Properties in Williams (ND)
9,349
Total Investors in Williams (ND)
3,091
Investor Owned SFR in Williams (ND)
2,514(26.9%)
Individual Landlords
Landlords
2,912
SFR Owned
2,313
Corporate Landlords
Landlords
179
SFR Owned
226
Understanding Property Counts

Distinct Count Methodology: The total 2,514 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 Williams County, Acquiring 70% of Q4 Homes at a 38% Discount
Investors own 2,514 SFR properties in Williams County, a significant 26.9% of the market, with 96.9% of these properties held by mom-and-pop landlords. In Q4, landlords purchased 69.6% of all homes sold, securing them for an average of 38.2% less than traditional homeowners. The market is defined by aggressive accumulation, as landlords were strong net buyers with a 9.15x buy-to-sell ratio in 2025.
Landlord Owned Current Holdings
Investors own 2,514 SFRs (26.9% of market), with individuals holding 92.0%.
Landlord portfolios in Williams County are heavily cash-based, with 1,747 properties owned outright versus 767 that are financed. The portfolio is intensely focused on rentals, with 2,482 properties (98.7%) designated as non-owner-occupied. Individuals comprise the vast majority of landlords, with 2,912 individual investors compared to just 179 companies.
Landlord vs Traditional Homeowners
Landlords paid 38.2% less than homeowners in Q4, a $147,757 discount per property.
The significant landlord discount has been consistent, with similar gaps in Q3 (33.4%) and Q2 (37.4%). However, Q1 2025 was a notable exception where landlords paid a 10.1% premium. There is no significant pricing data available to compare individual versus company buyers in this market.
Current Quarter Purchases
Landlords dominated Q4 activity, purchasing 16 properties, or 69.6% of all market sales.
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) were responsible for 100% of these investor purchases, with zero activity from institutional-scale investors. The quarter saw the entry of 18 new, single-property landlords, highlighting a vibrant small-investor market.
Ownership by Tier
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) control 96.9% of Williams County's investor-owned SFRs.
Single-property landlords alone own 80.2% of all investor-held housing. Institutional investors (1,000+ properties) have zero presence in the county, holding 0.0% of the portfolio. There is insufficient recent pricing data to compare tiers.
Ownership by Tier & Type
Individuals are the majority property owners across every investor tier in Williams County.
Unlike typical markets, there is no crossover point where companies become the majority owners. Even in the 6-10 property tier, individuals own 80.0% of the homes. Company ownership is minimal, peaking at only 20.0% in that same tier.
Geographic Distribution
Investor activity is highly concentrated, with the 58801 zip code holding 1,204 properties.
While 58801 has the highest count, other zip codes have extreme investor penetration rates, including 58853 (81.2%), 58845 (70.9%), and 58852 (70.7%). This reveals distinct pockets of intense investor focus within the county.
Historical Transactions
Landlords are aggressive net buyers, acquiring 9.15 properties for every 1 they sold in 2025.
This strong accumulation trend has been consistent, with landlords remaining net buyers in every recent quarter and year, including a net gain of 91 properties in 2024. Data on institutional transactions is not applicable due to their zero market presence.
Current Quarter Transactions
Landlords drove market liquidity, participating in 65.8% of all Q4 property transactions.
Experienced smaller landlords found the best deals, with those in the 3-10 property tiers paying $110,000-$138,750, while new single-property investors paid $281,814 on average. Notably, 100% of landlord purchases came from the open market, with zero transactions occurring between investors.

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 2,514 SFRs (26.9% of market), with individuals holding 92.0%.
Detailed Findings

In Williams County, landlords own a significant 2,514 Single-Family Residential (SFR) properties, representing 26.9% of the total 9,349 SFRs in the market. This high penetration rate indicates a strong investor presence in the local housing landscape.

The market is overwhelmingly dominated by individual investors rather than corporations. Individuals own 2,313 properties, accounting for 92.0% of the investor-owned portfolio, while companies hold the remaining 226 properties (9.0%).

This individual dominance is also reflected in the entity count, with 2,912 individual landlords compared to only 179 company landlords. This structure underscores a market built on small-scale, local investment.

Financially, landlords in this market demonstrate a strong capital position. They own more than twice as many properties with cash (1,747) as they do with financing (767), signaling low leverage and high liquidity within the investor community.

The investor portfolio is almost entirely dedicated to rentals. A total of 2,482 properties are rented, which accounts for 98.7% of all landlord-owned SFRs, highlighting a clear focus on generating rental income rather than short-term flipping.

Acquisition Timing & Pricing

Comparison of acquisition prices between landlords and traditional homeowners

Key Insight
Landlords paid 38.2% less than homeowners in Q4, a $147,757 discount per property.
Detailed Findings

Investors in Williams County demonstrated a powerful purchasing advantage in Q4, acquiring properties for an average price of $239,493 compared to the $387,250 paid by traditional homeowners. This represents a staggering 38.2% discount, saving landlords an average of $147,757 on every purchase.

This substantial price gap is not an anomaly. The trend of deep discounts was consistent throughout most of 2025, with landlords securing a 33.4% discount in Q3 and a 37.4% discount in Q2, indicating a sustained ability to find and close on undervalued properties.

In a sharp reversal of the prevailing trend, the first quarter of 2025 saw landlords pay an average of $399,791, which was a 10.1% premium over the homeowner price of $363,087. This outlier suggests a brief period where investors were competing for higher-value properties or market conditions temporarily shifted.

Despite the quarter-to-quarter volatility, overall property values have remained relatively stable. The average landlord acquisition price during the 2020-2023 period was $244,502, closely aligned with the Q4 2025 price of $239,493, suggesting a market that has cooled from any pandemic-era highs.

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 dominated Q4 activity, purchasing 16 properties, or 69.6% of all market sales.
Detailed Findings

Investor activity surged in Q4, with landlords acquiring 16 of the 23 total SFRs sold in Williams County. This represents a commanding 69.6% market share, indicating that investors were the primary driver of housing transactions during the period.

The entirety of this purchasing activity came from mom-and-pop landlords (portfolios of 1-10 properties), who bought 100% of the investor-acquired homes. Institutional investors (1,000+ properties) had no purchasing activity, reinforcing the market's small-investor character.

New entrants were a major force in the market. Single-property landlords (Tier 01) were the most active group, with 18 distinct entities purchasing 12 properties, accounting for 63.2% of all landlord acquisitions in Q4.

The data shows a concentration of buying power among the smallest investors. Following single-property landlords, investors in the 3-5 property tier acquired 4 homes (21.1%), and those in the 6-10 property tier bought 2 homes (10.5%).

This influx of 18 new single-property entities signals a healthy and accessible entry point for new investors, fueling the growth of the rental market from the ground up.

Ownership by Purchase Tier

Distribution of investor-owned properties across portfolio size tiers

Key Insight
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) control 96.9% of Williams County's investor-owned SFRs.
Detailed Findings

The investor landscape in Williams County is unequivocally defined by small-scale landlords. Mom-and-pop investors (owning 1-10 properties) collectively control 96.9% of all investor-owned SFRs, demonstrating a near-total market dominance.

First-time and single-property landlords are the bedrock of the market. This tier alone accounts for 2,075 properties, representing 80.2% of the entire investor portfolio, making it the most significant ownership segment by a wide margin.

Ownership concentration rapidly declines in larger tiers. Landlords with two properties hold 8.3% of the market, and those with 3-5 properties hold 7.3%. Portfolios larger than 10 properties are rare, collectively owning just 3.2% of investor-held SFRs.

In stark contrast to national headlines, institutional investors (1,000+ properties) have no footprint in Williams County, with 0.0% ownership. This highlights a market entirely driven by local and regional capital.

Mid-size investors (11-100 properties) also have a very limited presence. The 11-20 property tier holds only 56 properties (2.2%), and the 21-50 tier holds just 22 (0.9%), further emphasizing the market's fragmentation among small owners.

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
Individuals are the majority property owners across every investor tier in Williams County.
Detailed Findings

In Williams County, individual investors maintain majority ownership across every single portfolio size, a unique characteristic of this market. Companies have failed to establish a dominant position in any tier, even among larger portfolios.

The highest concentration of company ownership is in the 6-10 property tier, yet even here they only own 6 properties, a mere 20.0% share compared to the 24 properties (80.0%) held by individuals.

For the smallest and most numerous landlords, individual ownership is nearly absolute. Among single-property landlords, individuals own 1,944 homes (93.0%), while companies own just 147 (7.0%).

The pattern continues into mid-size tiers. In the 3-5 property segment, individuals hold an 86.9% majority, and in the 11-20 property segment, they hold a staggering 98.2% of properties.

This data illustrates that as landlords expand their portfolios in Williams County, they overwhelmingly continue to do so as individuals rather than incorporating, pointing to a market culture that favors personal ownership over corporate structures.

Geographic Distribution

Regional breakdown of investor activity and ownership patterns

Key Insight
Investor activity is highly concentrated, with the 58801 zip code holding 1,204 properties.
Detailed Findings

Investor ownership in Williams County is not evenly distributed, showing intense concentration in specific zip codes. The 58801 zip code is the epicenter of activity by volume, containing 1,204 investor-owned properties, though this accounts for a modest 16.7% of that area's housing stock.

A key finding is the distinction between high-volume and high-penetration areas. Several zip codes exhibit extraordinary investor ownership rates, suggesting they are primarily rental communities. Topping the list is 58853, where investors own 81.2% of all SFR properties.

Other areas with exceptionally high investor saturation include 58845 (70.9% investor-owned) and 58852 (70.7% investor-owned). These figures point to hyper-targeted investment strategies, likely tied to specific local industries or housing demands.

The top five zip codes by sheer count of investor properties (58801, 58852, 58849, 58843, 58845) collectively house the majority of rental homes in the county, making them critical sub-markets for understanding local housing dynamics.

This geographic analysis reveals a dual strategy among investors: broad-based accumulation in the primary zip code of 58801 and near-total market capture in smaller, secondary zip codes.

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 are aggressive net buyers, acquiring 9.15 properties for every 1 they sold in 2025.
Detailed Findings

Landlords in Williams County are in a phase of aggressive portfolio expansion, consistently buying far more properties than they sell. In 2025, they purchased 119 SFRs while selling only 13, resulting in a strong net accumulation of 106 properties and a buy-to-sell ratio of 9.15x.

This net buyer status is a persistent trend. In 2024, landlords also demonstrated strong growth, with 119 purchases against 28 sales for a net gain of 91 properties.

The quarterly data reinforces this pattern of accumulation. In Q3 2025, landlords were net buyers with 44 purchases and only 5 sales. Similarly, in Q2 2025, they added a net of 26 properties to their portfolios (31 buys vs. 5 sells).

The consistent, high-volume net buying activity across multiple years and quarters signals strong investor confidence in the Williams County rental market and a long-term hold strategy.

As there is no institutional investor presence in the county, all transaction activity is driven by small- to mid-sized landlords, whose collective behavior points toward continued growth in the local rental housing supply.

Current Quarter Transactions

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

Key Insight
Landlords drove market liquidity, participating in 65.8% of all Q4 property transactions.
Detailed Findings

Investors were the primary movers in the Williams County real estate market in Q4, involved in 25 of the 38 total transactions, a dominant 65.8% share of all activity.

A significant price disparity emerged among different types of mom-and-pop buyers. New investors entering the market (Tier 01) paid the highest average price at $281,814. In contrast, more established small landlords in the 3-5 and 6-10 property tiers acquired homes for just $110,000 and $138,750 respectively, suggesting they are securing significantly better deals.

The transaction data reveals that landlords are sourcing their properties exclusively from the traditional market. In Q4, 0% of landlord purchases were from other landlords, indicating a net flow of properties from homeowner to investor ownership rather than churn within the investor community.

All 25 landlord transactions in the quarter were conducted by mom-and-pop investors (Tiers 01-04), with zero activity from institutional players, once again confirming the market's small-investor foundation.

The high transaction share combined with the lack of inter-landlord sales shows that small investors are the main source of demand in the housing market, actively converting owner-occupied housing stock into rental properties.

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

Small Landlords Dominate Williams County, Buying 70% of Q4 Homes at a 38% Discount
Holdings
Landlords own 2,514 SFR properties, representing a significant 26.9% of the Williams County market, with individual investors overwhelmingly holding 92.0% of this portfolio compared to just 9.0% for companies.
Pricing
In Q4, landlords purchased properties for 38.2% less than traditional homeowners, securing a substantial average discount of $147,757 per property ($239,493 vs $387,250).
Activity
Investors dominated Q4 activity, purchasing 69.6% of all homes sold (16 properties), a period which also saw 18 new single-property landlords enter the market.
Market Share
The market is controlled by small investors, with mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) owning 96.9% of investor housing, while institutional investors have no presence (0.0%).
Ownership Type
Individual investors are the majority owners in every portfolio tier in Williams County, a rare market where there is no crossover point at which companies take control.
Transactions
Landlords are aggressive net buyers, acquiring 9.15 properties for every 1 they sold in 2025, and institutional investors were completely inactive with zero Q4 transactions.
Market Narrative

The Williams County housing market is fundamentally shaped by a large and active base of small, individual investors. Landlords own 2,514 Single-Family Residential properties, a significant 26.9% of the county's total SFR stock. This ownership is highly fragmented, with mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) controlling 96.9% of the investor portfolio. In a stark departure from national trends, institutional investors have zero presence. The market is overwhelmingly composed of individuals, who own 92.0% of the properties and make up the majority in every single ownership tier.

Investor behavior in Williams County is characterized by aggressive acquisition and savvy pricing. In Q4, landlords were the primary source of market demand, purchasing 69.6% of all homes sold. They demonstrated a powerful negotiating advantage, securing properties for an average price of $239,493—a 38.2% discount compared to traditional homeowners. This activity is fueled by a consistent accumulation strategy; landlords were strong net buyers throughout 2025, acquiring over nine properties for every one they sold. This indicates strong confidence in the local rental market's long-term prospects.

The key takeaway is that Williams County represents a robust, self-contained ecosystem of small-scale capitalism in real estate. The market is not driven by large corporations but by thousands of individual landlords actively converting housing stock to rentals. The high investor penetration rate, especially in concentrated zip codes where ownership exceeds 70%, combined with the deep purchasing discounts, suggests a market where local knowledge and deal-sourcing capabilities provide a distinct competitive edge. This dynamic points to a continued expansion of the rental supply driven entirely by organic, local investment.

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 02:47 AM
Data PeriodQ4 2025
Geography LevelCounty
GeographyWilliams (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 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