Beaufort (SC) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

Landlords in Beaufort County collectively own 20,299 Single Family Residential properties, representing a significant 26.2% of the county's total SFR market.

Individual investors overwhelmingly dominate the ownership landscape, holding 15,754 SFR properties (77.6% of investor-owned), while company-owned properties total 5,364 (26.4%). This high individual share challenges narratives of corporate market takeover in this region.

The vast majority of investor-owned properties, 20,149 properties, are rented, indicating a strong focus on generating rental income from these holdings, with a 99.3% rental penetration rate among landlord portfolios.

A substantial portion of landlord-owned properties were acquired via cash, with 11,609 properties being cash-owned compared to 8,690 properties that are financed, signaling robust financial backing or a preference for avoiding debt among investors.

By entity count, individual landlords number 22,870 (83.4%) out of 27,433 total landlords, reinforcing their pervasive presence in the market despite owning fewer properties per entity than companies.

Landlords in Beaufort County consistently paid a premium over traditional homeowners for SFR acquisitions throughout 2025, a trend that starkly contrasts national patterns where landlords often secure discounts. In Q4 2025, landlords paid an average of $697,696, a 1.1% ($7,872) premium compared to homeowners who paid $689,824.

This landlord premium has been steadily decreasing quarter-over-quarter in 2025, falling from a high of 7.6% ($54,597) in Q1 to 4.4% in Q3 and ultimately to 1.1% in Q4. This signals a potential convergence of pricing strategies or a cooling of market segments previously targeted by investors at higher costs.

In Q1 2025, landlords faced the largest pricing disadvantage, paying $774,286 on average, a significant $54,597 more than homeowners at $719,689, indicating strong demand or specific property targeting early in the year.

Despite the lack of specific acquisition counts for these periods in section 6-1, the consistent price data from section 6-2 across quarters highlights a unique market dynamic where investors are willing to pay above homeowner prices, possibly for rental-ready or high-yield properties.

In Q4 2025, landlords were highly active in Beaufort County, acquiring 360 SFR properties, which constitutes 34.0% of all 1,059 SFR purchases during the quarter.

The market was overwhelmingly dominated by mom-and-pop landlords (Tier 01-04), who accounted for 361 properties, representing 98.1% of all landlord purchases. This indicates that small-scale investors are the primary drivers of acquisition activity in the county.

Single-property landlords (Tier 01) were exceptionally active, purchasing 309 properties and involving 460 distinct entities. This signifies a strong influx of new or expanding small-scale investors into the market, far outnumbering larger players.

In stark contrast, institutional investors (Tier 09) had a minimal footprint, acquiring only 2 properties, which represents a mere 0.5% of total landlord purchases, reinforcing the small-investor dominance.

The average properties per entity for Tier 01 purchasers was approximately 0.67 properties (309 properties / 460 entities), suggesting a high number of individual transactions by new or consolidating small landlords.

Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) collectively command an overwhelming 96.9% share of all investor-owned SFR properties in Beaufort County, solidifying their role as the cornerstone of the rental housing market.

The market is heavily concentrated at the smallest scale, with single-property landlords (Tier 01) owning 17,370 properties, representing 83.2% of the entire investor-held SFR portfolio.

Institutional investors (Tier 09), owning 135 properties, hold a negligible 0.6% share, indicating a minimal direct corporate influence on the county's investor-owned housing supply.

The combined holdings of mid-size landlords (Tiers 05-08) amount to only 1.3% of investor-owned properties, further emphasizing the pronounced dominance of smaller, independent investors.

This tier distribution showcases a highly localized and small-investor-driven market structure, where individual landlords are the primary providers of rental housing.

A distinct crossover point occurs at the small landlord (6-10 properties) tier, where companies become the majority owners, holding 75.6% (170 properties) compared to individuals at 24.4% (55 properties).

Individual investors remain the dominant force in the smaller portfolio tiers, controlling 79.3% of single-property holdings (14,305 properties) and 74.2% of two-property portfolios (1,074 properties).

The shift towards corporate ownership intensifies significantly in larger tiers; companies own 99.0% (197 properties) of small-medium (11-20 properties) portfolios and 87.5% (7 properties) of medium-large (51-100 properties) portfolios.

This pattern indicates that while individuals are the primary source of entry-level investment, portfolio growth beyond a handful of properties is largely driven by corporate entities, signifying a clear strategic delineation by owner type and portfolio size.

Investor-owned properties in Beaufort County are highly concentrated within specific zip codes; SC-Beaufort-29928 leads both in total landlord-owned properties with 8,178 and boasts a substantial 52.7% investor ownership rate.

Certain sub-geographies exhibit exceptionally high investor ownership rates, with SC-Beaufort-29901 registering a 100.0% investor-owned rate and SC-Beaufort-29927 showing 75.0% investor-owned properties.

The top five zip codes by investor-owned property count – SC-Beaufort-29928, SC-Beaufort-29910, SC-Beaufort-29920, SC-Beaufort-29926, and SC-Beaufort-29909 – collectively host a significant portion of the county's investor activity.

A clear correlation exists where zip codes with high investor property counts also tend to have high investor ownership percentages, as exemplified by SC-Beaufort-29928.

Landlords in Beaufort County are consistently strong net buyers across all measured timeframes; in Q4 2025 alone, they executed 531 buy transactions against only 77 sell transactions, resulting in a robust 6.90x buy-to-sell ratio and a net gain of 454 properties.

This aggressive accumulation strategy is further evidenced by Year 2025 data, where landlords recorded 2,283 buys versus 307 sells, achieving a 7.44x buy/sell ratio and a net addition of 1,976 properties.

In stark contrast to the broader landlord market, institutional investors (1000+ tier) are acting as net sellers; in Q4 2025, they sold three times as many properties as they bought (6 sells vs 2 buys), resulting in a net reduction of 4 properties.

This divergent transaction pattern, with overall landlords accumulating and institutions divesting, highlights distinct market strategies and influences at play within Beaufort County.

The consistency of the high buy/sell ratio for all landlords across recent quarters, ranging from 6.83x in Q2 to 7.83x in Q3, suggests a sustained period of expansion for the non-institutional investor segment.

Landlords were actively engaged in Q4 2025, participating in 531 transactions, which represents a substantial 29.7% of the total 1,787 SFR transactions in Beaufort County.

A notable pricing disparity exists between investor tiers: Institutional investors (Tier 09) paid a significantly lower average purchase price of $356,000 in Q4, representing a 46.9% discount compared to the $670,753 average paid by single-property landlords (Tier 01).

Single-property landlords (Tier 01) were the most active, accounting for 460 transactions, demonstrating their prevalent role in the quarterly market activity, while institutional investors participated in only 2 transactions.

Inter-landlord trading was present but limited, with single-property landlords sourcing 7.8% of their Q4 transactions from other landlords, and Tier 2-5 landlords showing slightly higher percentages. However, all tiers from 6-10 properties and above reported 0% of their purchases coming from other landlords.

This suggests that institutional and larger-tier investors either target different segments of the market or utilize acquisition channels that do not involve direct transactions with other landlords, contributing to their significantly lower average purchase prices.