Carroll (TN) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

In Carroll County, TN, landlords collectively hold 2,314 Single Family Residential (SFR) properties, accounting for a substantial 27.8% of the total SFR market of 8,325 properties. This highlights a significant investor presence within the local housing landscape.

Individual investors overwhelmingly dominate the landlord sector, owning 2,126 SFR properties, which represents 91.9% of all investor-owned SFR. In stark contrast, companies own just 208 SFR properties, making up 9.0% of the landlord portfolio, challenging narratives of corporate dominance in this county.

The prevalence of individual ownership extends to entities, with 2,616 individual landlords operating compared to only 129 company landlords. This 20.3:1 ratio further solidifies the market's foundation in smaller, private investors rather than large corporations.

A vast majority of landlord-owned properties, 2,268 properties, are rented, indicating a strong focus on generating rental income within their portfolios. This points to a rental-driven investment strategy for most landlords in Carroll County, TN.

Cash acquisitions are highly favored by investors in Carroll County, TN, with 1,916 properties being purchased outright in cash, significantly outnumbering the 398 properties that are financed. This preference for cash suggests financial stability among investors and potentially quicker transaction closures.

The high percentage of rented properties (2,268 out of 2,314 investor-owned SFR) confirms that nearly all landlord-owned housing in Carroll County, TN is non-owner-occupied, serving the explicit purpose of rental housing.

While individuals dominate property counts, understanding the distinct property types like rented, financed, and cash holdings for each owner type (individual vs. company) would offer deeper insights into their specific investment strategies. However, current data aggregates these categories for all landlords, precluding a direct comparison by owner type within these sub-categories.

Landlord acquisition prices in Carroll County, TN, demonstrated extreme quarter-over-quarter volatility in 2025, ranging from significant premiums to substantial discounts against traditional homeowners. In Q4 2025, landlords, despite acquiring 0 properties in the tracked data, paid an average of $91,787, securing a considerable $157,672 discount (63.2% less) compared to homeowners who paid $249,459.

This Q4 discount stands in stark contrast to earlier in the year. In Q1 2025, landlords faced a hefty $147,431 premium, paying $375,980 versus homeowners' $228,549, representing a 64.5% increase. This dramatic swing signals a highly dynamic and unpredictable pricing environment for investors in the region.

The trend of volatile pricing continued into Q2 2025, where landlords paid a $56,666 premium (23.3%) over homeowners ($299,576 vs $242,910), followed by a $60,085 discount (31.8%) in Q3 2025 ($128,748 vs $188,833). The absence of reported landlord property acquisitions for these quarters (0 properties) suggests either a very small, untracked volume or that these average prices reflect other forms of landlord activity not captured as distinct purchases.

Across the entirety of 2025, landlords' average acquisition price was $229,531, while for 2024 it was $123,197, reflecting substantial price appreciation or shift in property types acquired year-over-year. However, the lack of property counts for these periods limits the certainty of these averages representing widespread market activity.

Comparing the pandemic-era (2020-2023) average acquisition price of $86,728 to the Q4 2025 price of $91,787 indicates a modest 5.8% increase in average pricing over time for properties that landlords were involved with, assuming comparable property types. This suggests a general upward trend in property values in Carroll County, TN, post-pandemic.

The dataset does not provide specific breakdowns of acquisition prices for individual landlords versus company landlords, preventing an analysis of how these distinct owner types approach pricing strategies.

The recurring observation of '0 properties acquired' by landlords across all detailed timeframes, yet reporting average acquisition prices, suggests that the average price data might be derived from a broader, less granular data source or represents specific transaction types not tallied as individual 'property acquisitions' in this context. This complicates direct interpretation of quarterly acquisition volume by landlords, but the price comparisons against homeowners remain informative for understanding market dynamics.

In Q4 2025, landlords were highly active in the Carroll County, TN, market, securing 31 of the 81 total Single Family Residential (SFR) purchases. This translates to a significant 38.3% share of all SFR acquisitions for the quarter, underscoring their influence on local real estate activity.

Mom-and-pop landlords, encompassing Tiers 01-04 (1-10 properties), were the dominant buyers, responsible for 25 properties, or 80.6% of all landlord purchases in Q4. This demonstrates that smaller, private investors are the primary force driving investor activity in the county.

Conversely, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) had a minimal presence, purchasing only 2 properties, which represents just 6.5% of landlord acquisitions for the quarter. This stark contrast emphasizes the localized, non-institutional nature of the investment market in Carroll County, TN.

New landlords, specifically those acquiring their first property (Tier 01), were notably active in Q4, purchasing 17 properties. This segment alone accounted for 54.8% of all landlord-purchased SFR, indicating a healthy influx of new individual investors entering the market.

The distribution of entities actively purchasing in Q4 further highlights the fragmented nature of the market. For instance, 26 entities in Tier 01 collectively acquired 17 properties, suggesting that most entities are focused on adding single properties, reinforcing the dominance of smaller-scale, incremental growth strategies among landlords in Carroll County, TN.

The average properties per entity in Q4 reflects the smaller scale of most purchases. For instance, while 26 entities are identified in Tier 01, they collectively acquired 17 properties, implying that many entities in this tier may not have purchased a property in this specific quarter, or those that did primarily added single properties. This reinforces the prevalence of smaller-scale, incremental growth strategies among landlords.

The concentration of Q4 activity within the mom-and-pop tiers, particularly Tier 01, suggests a robust and accessible entry point for new investors. This trend is a key indicator of market health and continued growth in the small-scale investor segment.

Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04, 1-10 properties) exert an overwhelming dominance over the investment housing market in Carroll County, TN, controlling 95.0% of all investor-owned Single Family Residential (SFR) properties. This firmly establishes the small-scale investor as the backbone of the local rental market.

Single-property landlords (Tier 01) alone represent the largest segment, owning 1,796 properties, which accounts for a substantial 74.2% of the total landlord portfolio. This high concentration signals that first-time and small-scale investors are the primary drivers of investor activity and property ownership.

In stark contrast to the mom-and-pop segment, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) have a minimal footprint in Carroll County, TN, owning only 3 properties, which constitutes a mere 0.1% of the total landlord-owned SFR. This data strongly refutes any notion of significant institutional control over the local housing market.

The market also shows moderate activity in the 'small landlord' and 'small-medium' segments. For example, Tiers 03-05 (3-5 properties) and Tiers 06-10 (6-10 properties) collectively own 323 properties (9.2% and 4.2% respectively), indicating a healthy presence of landlords growing their portfolios beyond a single property but remaining well within the mom-and-pop classification.

While comprehensive acquisition pricing data by tier across various timeframes (e.g., All Time, Q4, 2024, 2020-2023) is not directly provided in the 'Tier Prices' section of the dataset, Q4 2025 transaction data suggests larger investors pay less. Specifically, institutional investors in Q4 paid an average of $80,935, which is 19.4% less than the $100,379 paid by single-property mom-and-pop landlords.

The distribution of ownership by tier has remained consistently dominated by smaller investors, with no data provided to suggest a significant evolution or shift in this structure over time. The persistent high share of Tiers 01-04 indicates a stable, fragmented market largely insulated from large-scale corporate influence.

The low number of properties (3) and entities (2) in the institutional Tier 09, especially when compared to the 1,796 properties in Tier 01, clearly illustrates that institutional investors are not accumulating properties at a rate that would significantly alter the market structure in Carroll County, TN, remaining a marginal player.

The ownership landscape in Carroll County, TN, reveals a distinct crossover point where company ownership surpasses individual ownership as portfolio size increases. While individual investors overwhelmingly dominate the smaller tiers, companies establish majority control in portfolios larger than 10 properties.

Individual investors are the undisputed leaders in the mom-and-pop segments: they own 96.2% (1,740 properties) of single-property portfolios (Tier 01), 91.1% (164 properties) of two-property portfolios (Tier 02), 88.7% (197 properties) of 3-5 property portfolios, and 82.2% (83 properties) of 6-10 property portfolios. This consistent dominance underscores the grassroots nature of small-scale real estate investment in the county.

The pivotal shift occurs in the small-medium (11-20 properties) tier, where companies become the majority owners, holding 44 properties (55.0%) compared to individuals' 36 properties (45.0%). This marks the first tier where corporate investment significantly outweighs individual ownership.

Company dominance becomes even more pronounced in larger tiers. In the 21-50 property tier, companies own 21 properties (95.5%) compared to just 1 property (4.5%) held by individuals. Similarly, in the 51-100 property tier, companies own 2 properties (66.7%) against 1 property (33.3%) by individuals, solidifying their presence in mid-to-large-size portfolios.

While individual investors show strong activity and substantial property counts in the smaller tiers, their presence rapidly diminishes in larger portfolio sizes. This indicates that while many individuals start small, few scale up to larger portfolios, or if they do, they transition to company structures.

The dataset does not provide specific acquisition pricing data broken down by individual versus company within each tier. Therefore, a comparative analysis of their buying strategies and price points across different portfolio sizes cannot be performed based on the current data.

Comparing all-time ownership distribution against Q4 purchase patterns by owner type and tier would offer insights into growth trends. However, the available data primarily provides current ownership by tier and owner type, limiting a direct analysis of historical growth patterns for each owner type within specific tiers.

Carroll County, TN, exhibits significant geographic concentration of investor-owned properties within its zip codes, highlighting specific hotspots for landlord activity. The zip code 38344 leads by volume, with 659 investor-owned SFR properties, representing 24.9% of its total SFR market.

Following closely, zip code 38201 has 576 investor-owned properties, comprising 24.2% of its SFR market, and 38317 holds 248 properties at a 31.6% investor ownership rate. These top three areas represent the core hubs for investment property counts in Carroll County, TN.

While some zip codes lead in sheer property counts, others stand out for their high investor ownership rates. Zip code 38235, for instance, has an impressive 72.7% of its SFR properties owned by investors, indicating a market deeply penetrated by landlords, even if its total property count isn't among the highest.

A comparison of the top regions by count and by percentage reveals that high count regions often have substantial, but not always the highest, ownership rates. For example, 38258 is among the top five for both count (238 properties) and percentage (41.0%), suggesting a strong, concentrated investor presence. Conversely, 38344 and 38201, while having the highest counts, have lower percentages (24.9% and 24.2%) than regions like 38235 or 38258.

The variation in investor ownership rates, from 72.7% in 38235 to 24.2% in 38201, signals diverse market dynamics across different areas of Carroll County, TN. This suggests varying levels of opportunity, demand, or property characteristics that attract investors to different extents.

The dataset for Section 10 does not provide average acquisition prices specifically broken down by these sub-geographic regions. This limits the ability to analyze how investment values and pricing strategies vary across these local hotspots.

The number of landlord entities operating in each top region is not explicitly provided in this section, preventing a direct analysis of landlord density or market competition at the sub-geography level. However, the property counts per zip code still clearly illustrate areas of high investor activity.

Landlords in Carroll County, TN, demonstrated a consistent and strong net buyer position throughout 2025 and 2024, indicating a sustained strategy of property accumulation. In Q4 2025, they purchased 43 properties while selling only 12, resulting in a positive net acquisition of 31 properties and a significant buy/sell ratio of 3.58x.

This net buying trend is consistent across the year, with 2025 seeing 217 purchases against 58 sells, yielding a net of 159 properties (3.74x ratio), and 2024 showing 167 buys versus 48 sells, for a net of 119 properties (3.48x ratio). These figures highlight a robust and continuous expansion of landlord portfolios in the region.

Institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties), despite their small footprint, also showed net buying activity in Q4 2025, purchasing 3 properties and selling 2, for a net gain of 1 property. This marks a shift from their neutral position in 2024, where they had 1 buy and 1 sell, suggesting a cautious but current accumulation phase.

Comparing buy and sell transaction volumes quarter-over-quarter reveals fluctuating activity levels, with Q3 2025 having the highest buy volume (58 properties) and Q4 2025 showing a reduction to 43 buys. Despite these fluctuations, the net positive acquisition trend remains constant, signaling underlying market confidence among landlords.

The dataset in Section 11 does not provide specific percentages for landlord-to-landlord transactions, nor does it detail average buy prices versus average sell prices directly, limiting insights into potential profit margins or market liquidity driven by internal investor trading. These details are elaborated in Section 12.

The consistent net buying behavior of all landlords, contrasted with the more modest and recent net buying by institutions, suggests that overall market growth in landlord-owned SFR is primarily driven by the broader base of smaller, individual investors. Institutional activity, while present, does not define the overarching market trend.

The trend over time, particularly from 2024 to 2025, shows an increase in both buy and sell transactions, indicating a more dynamic market. However, the buy volume consistently outpaces sell volume, suggesting a healthy appetite for investment property acquisition in Carroll County, TN.

Landlords were significant participants in the Q4 2025 real estate market in Carroll County, TN, engaging in 43 of the total 123 transactions, representing a 35.0% share. This indicates a robust level of activity from investor buyers and sellers within the overall market.

Transaction volumes were heavily concentrated among mom-and-pop landlords. Tiers 01-04 (1-10 properties) collectively accounted for 36 transactions, dwarfing the 3 transactions attributed to institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties). This reinforces the dominance of smaller investors in shaping the market's activity.

A notable pricing dynamic emerged between investor tiers: institutional investors (Tier 09) paid an average of $80,935 in Q4, which is 19.4% less than the $100,379 average price paid by single-property landlords (Tier 01). This suggests larger investors may be able to secure properties at a lower per-unit cost, potentially through bulk purchases or distressed assets.

Inter-landlord trading activity was relatively low across most tiers. For single-property landlords (Tier 01), only 3 out of 26 transactions were bought from other landlords (11.5%). Similarly, for institutional investors (Tier 09), 1 out of 3 transactions involved another landlord (33.3%). This indicates that the majority of Q4 acquisitions came from non-landlord sellers, bringing new inventory into the investor pool.

The price spread between the highest and lowest average purchase prices among the active tiers was substantial, with Tier 01 paying $100,379 and Tier 02 paying $42,000. This wide variation reflects diverse property types, conditions, or strategic purchasing by different investor segments.

While Tier 09 showed the highest percentage of inter-landlord purchases at 33.3%, its low overall transaction volume (3) means this activity is not a major market driver. The bulk of transactions for all landlord tiers originated from non-landlord sources, indicating a healthy flow of properties from traditional homeowners into investor portfolios.

The distribution of Q4 transactions largely mirrors the overall ownership distribution by tier, with mom-and-pop landlords consistently leading in both categories. This suggests that the current market activity primarily reinforces the existing fragmented ownership structure rather than catalyzing a significant shift towards larger institutional control.