Roger Mills (OK) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

Landlords in Roger Mills County currently own 216 Single Family Residential (SFR) properties, constituting a significant 35.6% of the total SFR market. This establishes a substantial investor presence within the local housing landscape.

The ownership is heavily skewed towards individual investors, who collectively own 196 properties, representing 90.7% of the total landlord-held SFR. In stark contrast, company-owned SFR properties account for a mere 23 properties, or 10.6%.

This individual dominance is further reflected in entity counts, with 227 individual landlords compared to only 19 company landlords, underscoring the prevalence of small-scale, personal investment.

Nearly all investor-owned properties, specifically 214 out of 216, are rented, indicating a robust focus on generating rental income within this portfolio. This confirms the non-owner-occupied nature of the investment holdings.

The financing structure reveals a strong preference for cash acquisitions; 193 properties (89.4%) were bought outright with cash, while only 23 properties (10.6%) were financed. This suggests a conservative, long-term holding strategy for most investors in the county.

Roger Mills County experienced a complete absence of SFR acquisition activity in Q4 2025, with zero properties purchased by landlords, traditional homeowners, or any other buyer type. This indicates a highly stagnant market for new acquisitions during the most recent quarter.

Consequently, no data is available to compare landlord acquisition prices against those paid by traditional homeowners in Q4 2025. This means there is no measurable price gap or discount for landlords in the current period.

The lack of purchase activity extends beyond the current quarter; zero properties were acquired by landlords in 2024 (at a noted average of $92,857) and in the 2020-2023 period (at a noted average of $112,763). This suggests a prolonged period of minimal to no acquisition movement in the county's SFR market.

Without any recorded transactions, it is impossible to analyze price trends from the pandemic-era (2020-2023) to Q4 2025, nor can any appreciation or decline be quantified. This highlights a significant data gap regarding recent market dynamics.

Similarly, the absence of any individual or company acquisition activity means no price differences or purchasing strategies can be identified between these distinct owner types, leaving questions about their respective market behaviors unanswered.

The Q4 2025 real estate market in Roger Mills County exhibited a complete lack of activity, with zero total SFR purchases recorded across all buyer types. This indicates a period of pronounced inactivity in property acquisitions.

As a direct result of this stagnation, landlord purchases in Q4 2025 totaled zero properties, representing 0.0% of the market. This reflects an absence of new investment activity from landlords.

The purchasing landscape shows no engagement from any investor tier; mom-and-pop landlords (Tier 01-04) accounted for 0.0% of landlord purchases, mirroring the 0.0% share from institutional investors (Tier 09). This signifies a widespread halt in acquisition efforts across the entire spectrum of investor sizes.

Given the zero purchase activity, no new landlords entered the market in Q4 2025. This points to a lack of fresh capital or new entrants expanding the investor base.

The complete absence of activity for Q4 2025 makes it impossible to identify which tiers are most active in purchasing or analyze the average number of properties acquired per entity, as all acquisition metrics are at zero.

The ownership landscape in Roger Mills County is overwhelmingly dominated by mom-and-pop landlords, with Tiers 01-04 (1-10 properties) controlling an astounding 99.6% of all investor-owned SFR properties distributed across the tiers (223 out of 224 properties).

Single-property landlords (Tier 01) form the backbone of this market, holding 177 properties, which accounts for 79.0% of the total investor-owned SFR distributed across tiers. This highlights the prevalence of individual, small-scale investments.

In stark contrast, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) hold no properties in Roger Mills County (0.0%), defying national narratives about corporate dominance and underscoring a localized market structure.

Even mid-size landlords remain relatively minor players; the largest single entity outside of the mom-and-pop segment is in the Tier 05-08 (101-1000 properties), which owns just 1 property, representing 0.4% of the total properties distributed across tiers.

The distribution shows a steep drop-off after single-property landlords, with two-property landlords (Tier 02) holding 19 properties (8.5%), and the 3-5 property tier holding 14 properties (6.2%), further emphasizing the concentration at the lowest end of the landlord spectrum.

Due to the complete absence of acquisition price data by tier, it is not possible to determine if larger investors, such as the single entity in Tier 05-08, pay more or less than their smaller counterparts. The lack of institutional presence means no price comparison can be made against them either.

In Roger Mills County, individual investors consistently hold the majority across all observed portfolio tiers, with companies never achieving a majority share. This pattern is evident even in the more diverse tiers.

For instance, single-property landlords (Tier 01) are 91.7% individual (165 properties) versus 8.3% company-owned (15 properties). Similarly, in the two-property tier (Tier 02), individuals account for 89.5% (17 properties) while companies hold 10.5% (2 properties).

The highest concentration of company ownership is found in the 3-5 property tier (Tier 03), where companies own 5 properties, representing 35.7% of that tier. However, individuals still retain a substantial majority with 9 properties (64.3%).

Notably, in the 6-10 property tier (Tier 04), individual investors exclusively own 100.0% of the 13 properties, with no company presence, highlighting strong individual control in the larger mom-and-pop segment.

The complete absence of institutional investors (Tier 09) means there are no institutional companies operating in Roger Mills County. This further solidifies the market as being driven almost exclusively by individual, small-scale investors.

Without any recorded acquisition prices by owner type or tier, it is impossible to determine if individual or company investors pay different prices within tiers, or to compare their growth patterns over time.

Within Roger Mills County, the 73628 zip code stands out as the primary hub for investor-owned properties, boasting 135 SFR properties. This represents the largest concentration of investor holdings in any single sub-geography in the county.

While 73628 leads in raw count, the 73660 zip code exhibits the highest investor ownership rate, with 42.7% of its SFR properties being investor-owned (38 properties). This indicates a more intensive landlord penetration in this specific area.

The 73628 zip code also shows a significant ownership rate of 39.8%, placing it second in terms of investor market share within its local area, demonstrating a strong correlation between high property counts and high ownership rates in the top regions.

Other notable zip codes for investor activity include 73650 with 31 properties (26.5% investor-owned) and 73666 with 5 properties (33.3% investor-owned). This geographic distribution highlights pockets of investor focus within the county.

The concentration of investor-owned properties in specific zip codes suggests targeted investment strategies or localized market opportunities that attract landlords to these areas more than others. The top three areas by count (73628, 73660, 73650) collectively account for 204 properties, or 94.4% of the county's total investor-owned SFR (216 properties from Section 5).

Despite these clear geographic differences in ownership, the provided data does not include acquisition prices by zip code, preventing any analysis of price variations or investment value across different regions within Roger Mills County.

Roger Mills County shows a complete absence of historical landlord transaction data, with zero recorded buy or sell transactions across all timeframes. This signifies a prolonged period of market dormancy for investor activity.

Consequently, it is impossible to determine if landlords in Roger Mills County have been net buyers or net sellers over time, as no buy or sell volumes are available to calculate a ratio. This also means no implied profit margins from historical buy vs. sell prices can be assessed.

The data also lacks any information on inter-landlord transactions, meaning the percentage of purchases made from other landlords or sales to other landlords cannot be quantified, suggesting a non-existent or unrecorded secondary market among investors.

This data gap extends specifically to institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties), for whom zero buy or sell transactions are recorded. This implies that institutional entities have either not been active in this market or their activities are not captured in the available data.

The overall lack of transaction data, both for all landlords and specifically for institutional investors, highlights a market that has seen little to no recorded turnover of investor-owned SFR properties in recent history, emphasizing a long-term holding pattern for existing landlords.

The Q4 2025 transaction summary for Roger Mills County reveals a complete market standstill, with zero total SFR transactions recorded. This implies a highly inactive period for property sales and purchases.

As a direct consequence of this inactivity, landlords were involved in zero transactions, resulting in a 0.0% share of total Q4 transactions. This indicates no recent market participation from investors in the buying or selling of properties.

Given the absence of transactions by tier, it is impossible to analyze how transaction volumes vary across investor segments or identify which tiers were most active in Q4 2025. All tier-specific activity metrics are at zero.

Similarly, average purchase prices by tier cannot be determined, as no properties were bought. The reported $0 average prices for Tier 01 and Tier 09 directly reflect the lack of acquisition activity.

Without any purchase data, there is no information on inter-landlord trading activity for Q4 2025. This means the percentage of properties bought from other landlords by any tier cannot be quantified, reinforcing the picture of a frozen transaction market.