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

Investors in Kershaw County, SC, collectively own 4,358 Single Family Residential (SFR) properties, representing a significant 18.5% of the total 23,598 SFR properties in the market. This substantial presence underscores the county's appeal to real estate investors.

Individual landlords, often characterized as mom-and-pop investors, overwhelmingly dominate the ownership landscape, holding 3,597 properties, which accounts for 82.5% of all investor-owned SFR. In contrast, company-owned properties make up the remaining 18.0% with 784 units.

The prevalence of individual investors is even more pronounced when considering entity counts, with 4,206 individual landlords representing 89.9% of the total 4,678 landlords in the county, compared to just 472 company landlords (10.1%). This distribution challenges narratives focusing solely on large corporate ownership.

A striking 97.9% of investor-owned properties (4,267 out of 4,358) are rented, indicating a strong focus on generating rental income within these portfolios. This high rate suggests a mature and active rental market within Kershaw County.

Moreover, the financing structure of these holdings reveals a significant preference for cash acquisitions; 3,785 properties (86.8% of total investor-owned) were purchased with cash, while only 573 properties were financed. This suggests a market where investors, particularly individuals, prefer to minimize leverage.

In Q4 2025, landlords in Kershaw County, SC, notably acquired properties at a significant discount compared to traditional homeowners. The average landlord acquisition price was $260,207, which is $70,972 or 21.4% less than the average homeowner price of $331,179.

This pricing advantage for landlords was not consistent throughout 2025, revealing fluctuating market dynamics. In Q3 2025, landlords secured an even deeper discount of 30.7% ($111,545), paying $252,252 against homeowners' $363,797. However, Q2 2025 presented a contrasting scenario where landlords paid a slight premium of 0.3% ($1,006), with average prices of $334,929 compared to homeowners' $333,923.

Despite the provided average prices for landlords in each quarter of 2025, the underlying data indicates 0 distinct properties were purchased by landlords in those periods for pricing metric calculations. This suggests that the stated average acquisition prices may reflect a broader historical context or a specific subset of data, rather than new purchases within the quarter itself, indicating a potential data reporting anomaly that warrants careful consideration.

The average landlord acquisition price in Q1 2025 was $236,109, which represented a 24.0% discount ($74,664) compared to the homeowner average of $310,773. This shows a strong start to the year for landlords in terms of price advantage, despite the overall low volume of recorded transactions for pricing analysis.

Over the longer term, the average landlord acquisition price for Year 2025 was $274,157, while for Year 2024 it was $264,902, and for the 2020-2023 pandemic boom period it averaged $240,906. This suggests a gradual appreciation in average acquisition costs for landlords over recent years, irrespective of the fluctuating quarterly discounts against homeowners.

In Q4 2025, landlords in Kershaw County were active participants in the housing market, accounting for 50 distinct SFR property purchases, which represents 22.5% of the total 222 SFR purchases in the quarter. This indicates a consistent investor presence despite broader market conditions.

The bulk of landlord purchasing activity was driven by mom-and-pop investors, encompassing Tiers 01-04, who together acquired 47 properties, making up an overwhelming 94.0% of all landlord purchases in Q4. This reinforces their foundational role in the local rental market.

Single-property landlords (Tier 01) were particularly active, responsible for acquiring 36 properties, constituting 72.0% of all landlord purchases in Q4. This surge also saw 51 new entities entering the market as single-property landlords, signaling strong entry-level investment interest.

In stark contrast to the mom-and-pop activity, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) made a negligible impact, purchasing only 1 property, which amounted to just 2.0% of total landlord acquisitions in Q4. This highlights the limited presence of large-scale corporate buying in Kershaw County's recent market activity.

Mid-size landlord tiers (05-08) showed modest activity: Tier 2 (two-property owners) acquired 1 property (2.0%), Tiers 3-5 (small landlords) bought 5 properties (10.0%), and Tiers 6-10 (small landlords) also added 5 properties (10.0%). Larger mid-size tiers (11-20 and 101-1000) each acquired 1 property, demonstrating a broad but small distribution of activity across various portfolio sizes beyond the mom-and-pop segment.

Kershaw County's investor-owned SFR market is overwhelmingly dominated by mom-and-pop landlords, with Tiers 01-04 controlling an impressive 94.3% of all investor-owned properties. This distribution clearly illustrates that smaller, independent investors are the primary force in the local rental housing sector.

The largest segment within this market is the single-property landlord (Tier 01), who collectively own 3,329 properties, accounting for a commanding 75.0% of the total 4,358 investor-owned SFR units. This signifies the critical role of first-time or minimal-portfolio investors in shaping the county's housing landscape.

In stark contrast to the mom-and-pop segment, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) hold a very modest share, owning only 52 properties, which represents a mere 1.2% of the total investor-owned portfolio. This demonstrates that large-scale corporate landlords have a limited presence in Kershaw County.

Mid-size landlords (Tiers 05-08) together account for 4.5% of investor-owned properties, totaling 198 units across Tiers 11-20 (0.7%), 21-50 (1.8%), 51-100 (0.7%), and 101-1000 (1.4%). This indicates that while mom-and-pop landlords are dominant, there is a small but active segment of growing investors managing larger portfolios.

Notably, detailed acquisition pricing information by tier was not provided in the available data for this section, making a direct comparison of purchase price strategies across different investor sizes challenging based on current holdings alone.

The ownership structure in Kershaw County exhibits a clear transition point where company ownership surpasses individual ownership as portfolio sizes increase. The crossover occurs at the 6-10 property tier, where companies become the majority owners, holding 50 properties (54.9%) compared to individuals' 41 properties (45.1%).

Individual investors overwhelmingly dominate the smaller portfolio tiers, forming the backbone of the rental market. For instance, in the single-property tier (Tier 01), individuals own 3,041 properties, accounting for 90.8% of the total, while companies own only 307 properties (9.2%).

As portfolio sizes grow, the concentration of company ownership rapidly escalates. In the 21-50 property tier, companies own 75 properties (96.2%), leaving individuals with a marginal 3 properties (3.8%), showcasing a stark shift in market structure for larger portfolios.

Even in mid-tier portfolios, individual ownership, while still majority, sees its share diminish. In the 3-5 property tier, individuals hold 72.5% (335 properties) compared to companies at 27.5% (127 properties), a notable decrease from the 90.8% individual share in Tier 01.

The data provided for this section does not include acquisition prices split by individual and company owners within each tier, nor does it detail growth patterns over time for different owner types, thus limiting insights into comparative investment strategies and market evolution.

Investor-owned properties in Kershaw County exhibit distinct geographic concentrations at the zip code level. The 29020 zip code leads by total count, with 2,104 investor-owned SFR properties, comprising 21.8% of its local SFR market, making it the most significant area for investor volume.

However, when looking at the investor ownership rate, the 29074 zip code stands out dramatically, with an exceptionally high 75.1% of its SFR properties being investor-owned. This indicates a highly specialized or targeted sub-market that is overwhelmingly dominated by rental properties.

Another area of high investor penetration is the 29009 zip code, where 34.7% of properties are investor-owned (271 properties). This zip code appears in both top-by-count and top-by-percentage lists, signaling a strong concentration of investor activity.

The disparity between high-count and high-percentage zip codes reveals different market dynamics. For example, while 29020 has the most investor properties, its 21.8% ownership rate is lower than other areas like 29058 (33.3% rate) or 29175 (30.6% rate), which have fewer total investor-owned properties. This indicates that larger zip codes might simply have more overall SFR inventory, diluting the investor share.

These geographic patterns suggest that investors in Kershaw County target specific sub-markets with varying strategies, some focusing on sheer volume in larger areas, and others on high penetration in smaller, more specialized locales where rental demand or investment opportunities are particularly strong.

Landlords in Kershaw County, SC, consistently demonstrated a strong net buyer position throughout 2025 and 2024, signaling continued accumulation of SFR properties. For Year 2025, landlords collectively purchased 294 properties while selling only 60, resulting in a robust buy/sell ratio of 4.9x.

Quarterly transaction data for 2025 shows this consistent buying trend: Q4 saw 68 buys versus 16 sells (4.25x ratio), Q3 had 65 buys against 22 sells (2.95x ratio), and Q2 recorded the highest activity with 89 buys versus 13 sells (6.85x ratio). This indicates sustained, albeit fluctuating, investor confidence and acquisition momentum.

Comparing year-over-year activity, landlords purchased 294 properties in 2025, a slight increase from 273 purchases in 2024. Similarly, sales increased from 50 in 2024 to 60 in 2025, but the buy/sell ratio remained strongly positive in both years (5.46x in 2024 vs 4.9x in 2025).

Institutional investors (1000+ tier) also maintained a net buyer status, but with significantly lower volumes. In 2025, they purchased 4 properties and sold 1; in 2024, they bought 2 and sold 1. Their minimal transaction activity underscores their limited direct influence on the overall market compared to smaller landlords.

The available data for this section did not include details on the percentage of buy/sell transactions that occurred between landlords or average buy/sell prices, thus limiting further analysis into inter-landlord trading patterns or implied profit margins from these historical transactions.

In Q4 2025, landlords played a significant role in Kershaw County's real estate market, participating in 68 transactions, which represents 20.1% of the total 339 SFR transactions during the quarter. This indicates a consistent and notable presence of investors in overall market activity.

Single-property landlords (Tier 01) were the most active segment, responsible for 52 transactions, comprising 76.5% of all landlord transactions in Q4. This highlights their continuous, dominant contribution to market liquidity and investor activity.

A striking pricing pattern emerged between different investor tiers: Institutional investors (Tier 09) acquired properties at an average price of $165,000 in Q4, which is 41.4% less than the $281,362 average price paid by single-property mom-and-pop buyers. This vast price differential suggests significantly different acquisition strategies or property types targeted by larger versus smaller investors.

Inter-landlord trading activity was notably low across all tiers. Single-property landlords bought only 4 properties (7.7%) from other landlords, while institutional investors reported 0 purchases from other landlords (0.0%). This suggests that most transactions involving landlords are with non-investor sellers, rather than within the investor community itself.

Mom-and-pop landlords (Tier 01-04) collectively accounted for 64 transactions (94.1% of all landlord transactions), reinforcing their overarching influence on transaction volumes in Q4. This contrasts sharply with the single transaction from institutional investors, further emphasizing the granular nature of investor activity in the county.