Tom Green (TX) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

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

Market Overview

Total SFR Properties in Tom Green (TX)
37,923
Total Investors in Tom Green (TX)
8,341
Investor Owned SFR in Tom Green (TX)
8,227(21.7%)
Individual Landlords
Landlords
7,512
SFR Owned
6,150
Corporate Landlords
Landlords
829
SFR Owned
2,143
Understanding Property Counts

Distinct Count Methodology: The total 8,227 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 Landlords Drive Tom Green County Market Amidst Institutional Retreat
Landlords in Tom Green County own 8,227 SFR properties, comprising 21.7% of the market. Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) dominate, controlling 85.6% of investor-owned housing, while institutional investors show a notable retreat in Q4, becoming net sellers. Landlords consistently secure significant acquisition discounts, paying 30.8% less than traditional homeowners in Q4 2025.
Landlord Owned Current Holdings
Tom Green County Landlords Own 8,227 SFR Properties, With Individuals Holding 74.8%
The vast majority of landlord-owned SFR properties are cash acquisitions, totaling 5,799 properties, significantly outweighing the 2,428 financed holdings. Nearly all landlord properties are rented, with 7,963 designated as such, affirming a strong rental-focused portfolio.
Landlord vs Traditional Homeowners
Landlords Secured a 30.8% Discount in Q4, Paying $93,362 Less Than Homeowners
The price gap between landlords and homeowners has widened significantly, with the Q4 discount of 30.8% being the largest this year, up from 14.6% in Q1. Overall landlord acquisition prices for Q4 2025 ($209,659) reflect a 5.1% decline compared to the pandemic-era average of $220,883 (2020-2023), indicating a softening market for investors.
Current Quarter Purchases
Landlords Secured 25.9% of All Q4 Purchases, Driven by Mom-and-Pop Activity
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) overwhelmingly led Q4 purchases, acquiring 111 properties and representing 79.3% of all landlord acquisitions. In stark contrast, institutional investors (1000+ properties) made only 3 purchases, accounting for a minimal 2.1% of the landlord purchasing volume.
Ownership by Tier
Mom-and-Pop Landlords Control 85.6% of Tom Green County's Investor-Owned SFR
Single-property landlords (Tier 01) alone account for 63.8% of all investor-owned properties, signaling their foundational role in the market. Institutional investors (Tier 09) hold a negligible 0.2% of the total investor-owned SFR properties, highlighting the market's fragmentation.
Ownership by Tier & Type
Companies Become Majority Owners at the 6-10 Property Tier in Tom Green County
Individuals overwhelmingly dominate the smaller portfolio tiers, holding 90.6% of single-property portfolios and 75.3% of two-property portfolios. Company ownership rapidly increases in larger tiers, reaching 99.5% in the 101-1000 property tier.
Geographic Distribution
Tom Green County's Zip Codes 76903 and 76901 Lead Investor Property Counts
Zip code 76934 has the highest investor ownership rate at 28.5%, indicating a dense concentration of rental properties, while 76903 and 76901 follow closely with 26.7% and 24.1% respectively. Together, zip codes 76903 and 76901 account for 5,272 investor-owned properties, highlighting significant geographic concentration of investor activity.
Historical Transactions
All Landlords Remain Net Buyers With 3.05x Ratio, but Institutional Investors Are Net Sellers in Q4
Landlords overall maintained a strong net buyer position throughout 2025 (2.25x ratio) and 2024 (2.61x ratio), consistently accumulating properties. In contrast, institutional investors (1000+ tier) shifted from being net buyers for the year (1.62x ratio) to net sellers in Q4 2025 (0.8x ratio), divesting 5 properties against 4 acquisitions.
Current Quarter Transactions
Landlords Accounted for 22.7% of All Q4 Transactions in Tom Green County
Institutional investors (Tier 09) acquired properties at $214,328, paying 12.1% less than single-property (Tier 01) landlords who averaged $243,724. Institutional buyers sourced 50.0% of their Q4 transactions from other landlords, significantly higher than the 11.4% seen with single-property landlords.

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
Tom Green County Landlords Own 8,227 SFR Properties, With Individuals Holding 74.8%
Detailed Findings

Landlords in Tom Green County collectively own 8,227 SFR properties, representing a substantial 21.7% of the county's total SFR market of 37,923 properties.

Individual investors form the backbone of the landlord market, owning 6,150 properties (74.8%) compared to companies which hold 2,143 properties (26.0%) of the total investor-owned portfolio, demonstrating a clear individual dominance.

The prevalence of individual ownership extends to entities, with 7,512 individual landlords comprising 90.0% of the 8,341 total landlord entities in the county.

A significant 7,963 of landlord-owned properties are rented, indicating a high focus on non-owner-occupied investment, aligning closely with the landlord definition.

Cash acquisitions are overwhelmingly preferred, with 5,799 landlord-owned properties being cash purchases, nearly 2.4 times the 2,428 properties acquired through financing.

The substantial cash holdings suggest a robust, less leveraged investor base, making up approximately 70.5% of all investor-owned properties (5,799 cash properties out of 8,227 total investor-owned).

Acquisition Timing & Pricing

Comparison of acquisition prices between landlords and traditional homeowners

Key Insight
Landlords Secured a 30.8% Discount in Q4, Paying $93,362 Less Than Homeowners
Detailed Findings

In Q4 2025, landlords in Tom Green County paid an average of $209,659 per SFR property, securing a significant $93,362 discount, or 30.8% less than traditional homeowners who paid $303,021.

This substantial price advantage for landlords represents a notable widening of the gap, as the Q4 discount of 30.8% is more than double the 14.6% discount observed in Q1 2025 ($41,269 difference).

Comparing quarterly trends, the landlord acquisition price has steadily decreased throughout 2025, from $241,642 in Q1 to $209,659 in Q4, while homeowner prices have shown more fluctuation, including an increase from $282,911 in Q1 to $303,021 in Q4.

The current Q4 2025 average landlord acquisition price of $209,659 is $11,224 lower than the average price ($220,883) paid by landlords during the 2020-2023 pandemic-era boom, indicating a downward trend in investor entry costs.

The consistent ability of landlords to acquire properties at a significant discount compared to homeowners highlights a potential arbitrage opportunity or specialized acquisition channels within the market.

The sharp increase in the discount percentage from Q1 to Q4 suggests shifting market dynamics, potentially favoring landlords who are able to negotiate more aggressively or target distressed properties.

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 Secured 25.9% of All Q4 Purchases, Driven by Mom-and-Pop Activity
Detailed Findings

Landlords in Tom Green County were active buyers in Q4 2025, acquiring 137 SFR properties, which accounts for 25.9% of the total 529 SFR purchases in the market.

Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) dominated purchasing activity, responsible for 111 acquisitions, making up a significant 79.3% of all landlord purchases during the quarter.

The market saw a substantial influx of new individual investors, with 104 distinct entities entering the market as single-property landlords (Tier 01) in Q4, collectively purchasing 77 properties.

In contrast to the mom-and-pop surge, institutional investors (Tier 09) demonstrated minimal Q4 buying activity, securing only 3 properties, which translates to a mere 2.1% of all landlord purchases.

The high concentration of purchases in Tier 01 (55.0% of landlord purchases) underscores the role of smaller, individual investors in shaping the current market acquisition landscape.

The ratio of new entities (104) to properties acquired (77) by Tier 01 suggests that many newly formed landlord entities are initiating their portfolios, indicating sustained grassroots investment interest.

Ownership by Purchase Tier

Distribution of investor-owned properties across portfolio size tiers

Key Insight
Mom-and-Pop Landlords Control 85.6% of Tom Green County's Investor-Owned SFR
Detailed Findings

Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) collectively control a dominant 85.6% of all investor-owned SFR properties in Tom Green County, holding a total of 7,295 properties.

The smallest tier, single-property landlords (Tier 01), forms the largest segment by far, owning 5,441 properties, which represents 63.8% of the entire landlord-owned portfolio.

In stark contrast to the mom-and-pop dominance, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) hold a marginal share, with only 13 properties, accounting for a mere 0.2% of the investor-owned market.

The concentration of ownership clearly signals a highly fragmented market structure, where thousands of small-scale investors, rather than a few large entities, comprise the majority of rental housing providers.

The absence of specific tier pricing data for Tom Green County means a direct comparison of acquisition costs across different investor tiers cannot be made from the provided information.

This distribution challenges any perception of a market dominated by large corporate entities, instead showcasing the significant role of smaller, local landlords in the county's housing supply.

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
Companies Become Majority Owners at the 6-10 Property Tier in Tom Green County
Detailed Findings

The ownership landscape in Tom Green County reveals a clear crossover point where company ownership surpasses individual ownership: at the 6-10 property tier, companies hold 51.0% (237 properties) compared to individuals at 49.0% (228 properties).

Individual investors are the dominant force in smaller portfolios, owning 4,954 single-property holdings (90.6%) and 378 two-property holdings (75.3%), underscoring their foundational role in the market's entry points.

As portfolio size increases, company involvement escalates dramatically, moving from 9.4% in Tier 01 to 72.1% in the 11-20 property tier, and reaching near-total dominance at 99.5% in the 101-1000 property tier.

This pattern indicates that while individuals may initiate real estate investment, companies tend to scale up and consolidate portfolios beyond a certain size threshold, becoming the primary owners of larger rental housing operations.

The provided data does not include acquisition prices broken down by individual vs company within each tier, preventing a comparison of their respective buying strategies and price points.

The strong company presence in larger tiers, particularly 81.1% in the 21-50 property tier, suggests a shift towards more professional or entity-managed investment as portfolio complexity grows.

Geographic Distribution

Regional breakdown of investor activity and ownership patterns

Key Insight
Tom Green County's Zip Codes 76903 and 76901 Lead Investor Property Counts
Detailed Findings

Within Tom Green County, zip codes 76903 and 76901 exhibit the highest concentration of investor-owned properties, with 2,729 and 2,543 properties respectively, collectively accounting for 5,272 properties.

Zip code 76934 stands out with the highest investor ownership rate at 28.5%, indicating that over a quarter of all SFR properties in this area are owned by landlords.

The top two zip codes by count, 76903 (2,729 properties) and 76901 (2,543 properties), also rank high in investor ownership rates at 26.7% and 24.1%, demonstrating a clear correlation between total investor properties and market penetration in these areas.

Conversely, zip code 76904 shows a comparatively lower investor ownership rate of 15.5% despite having 1,792 investor-owned properties, suggesting a larger overall SFR housing stock in that area.

The observed geographic concentration in specific zip codes suggests areas with higher rental demand, more affordable entry points for investors, or existing infrastructure catering to rental properties.

The absence of acquisition price data by zip code prevents an analysis of how prices vary across these distinct sub-geographies for investors.

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
Chart Section11 Yoy Institutional
Key Insight
All Landlords Remain Net Buyers With 3.05x Ratio, but Institutional Investors Are Net Sellers in Q4
Detailed Findings

Landlords in Tom Green County consistently remained net buyers throughout 2024 and 2025, culminating in a robust Q4 2025 buy/sell ratio of 3.05x, with 174 properties bought against 57 sold, indicating a strong appetite for accumulation.

Over the full year 2025, landlords acquired 732 properties while selling 326, resulting in a 2.25x buy/sell ratio, and in 2024, they maintained a 2.61x ratio (834 buys vs 319 sells), demonstrating sustained growth.

In a notable shift, institutional investors (1000+ tier) became net sellers in Q4 2025, divesting 5 properties while acquiring only 4, resulting in a net reduction of 1 property and a 0.8x buy/sell ratio.

This institutional retreat in the most recent quarter contrasts with their net buyer position for the full year 2025 (21 buys vs 13 sells, 1.62x ratio) and 2024 (11 buys vs 9 sells, 1.22x ratio), signaling a strategic re-evaluation or exit in Tom Green County.

The absence of data regarding the percentage of landlord-to-landlord transactions prevents an analysis of inter-investor market liquidity or average buy/sell price comparisons for all landlords.

The diverging transaction patterns between all landlords (net buyers) and institutional investors (Q4 net sellers) highlights differing market strategies and responses to current economic conditions among investor segments.

Current Quarter Transactions

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

Key Insight
Landlords Accounted for 22.7% of All Q4 Transactions in Tom Green County
Detailed Findings

Landlords were significant participants in the Tom Green County market in Q4 2025, responsible for 174 of the total 765 SFR transactions, representing 22.7% of all market activity.

Institutional investors (Tier 09) demonstrated a strategic advantage in pricing, acquiring properties at an average of $214,328, which is a 12.1% discount compared to the $243,724 paid by single-property landlords (Tier 01) in Q4.

The highest inter-landlord trading activity was observed within the institutional tier, where 50.0% of their Q4 transactions (2 out of 4) were purchases from other landlords, suggesting sophisticated network utilization.

In contrast, single-property landlords (Tier 01) sourced a much smaller proportion of their Q4 purchases from other landlords, with only 11.4% (12 out of 105 transactions) being inter-landlord trades.

Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) collectively dominated Q4 transactions, making 142 purchases, reinforcing their consistent high level of activity in the county.

The notable price difference between institutional and single-property buyers suggests that larger entities may have access to better deal flow or possess stronger negotiation leverage for acquisitions.

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

Mom-and-Pop Landlords Command Tom Green County Market Amidst Institutional Exit
Holdings
Landlords own 8,227 SFR properties in Tom Green County, comprising 21.7% of the total SFR market. Individual investors collectively hold 6,150 properties (74.8%), while companies own 2,143 properties (26.0%) of the investor-owned portfolio.
Pricing
Landlords paid an average of $209,659 in Q4 2025, securing a substantial 30.8% discount, or $93,362 less, than traditional homeowners at $303,021, indicating a widening price gap favoring investors.
Activity
Q4 saw landlords acquire 137 properties, representing 25.9% of all SFR purchases in Tom Green County, with 104 new single-property landlords entering the market, predominantly driving activity.
Market Share
Small landlords (1-10 properties) overwhelmingly control 85.6% of investor-owned housing in Tom Green County, while institutional investors (1000+ properties) own a minimal 0.2%.
Ownership Type
Individual investors dominate up to 5 properties, but companies achieve majority control at the 6-10 property tier (51.0%), escalating their share dramatically in larger portfolios.
Transactions
All landlords in Tom Green County are net buyers with a Q4 buy/sell ratio of 3.05x (174 buys vs 57 sells), while institutional investors buck the trend, becoming net sellers in Q4 with 4 buys against 5 sells.
Market Narrative

Tom Green County's real estate investment landscape is significantly shaped by small-scale investors, with landlords collectively owning 8,227 SFR properties, representing 21.7% of the total SFR market. The market exhibits a clear fragmentation, as mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) control an overwhelming 85.6% of this investor-owned housing, far outstripping the mere 0.2% held by institutional investors. Individual landlords further reinforce this structure, comprising 90.0% of all landlord entities and owning nearly three-quarters of the investor portfolio.

Investor behavior in Q4 2025 demonstrates a compelling dynamic: landlords acquired 25.9% of all SFR purchases, frequently securing substantial discounts – a remarkable 30.8% below homeowner prices. While landlords overall remained strong net buyers with a 3.05x buy/sell ratio, institutional investors notably shifted to being net sellers in Q4, signaling a divergence in market strategies. This quarter also saw a significant entry of 104 new single-property landlords, indicating sustained grassroots investment interest, particularly within highly concentrated zip codes like 76903 and 76901.

The data from Tom Green County reveals a resilient and locally driven investor market, largely sustained by individual and small-scale landlords who are actively accumulating properties and securing favorable pricing. The retreat of institutional players in Q4 suggests that larger entities may be divesting or re-evaluating their positions in this specific county, potentially creating further opportunities for smaller investors. This dynamic reinforces the notion that the supply of rental housing in Tom Green County remains predominantly in the hands of numerous small business owners, rather than corporate giants.

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 18, 2026 at 03:43 PM
Data PeriodQ4 2025
Geography LevelCounty
GeographyTom Green (TX)
×
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
Chart Section11 Buysell
×
Chart Section11 Buysell Price
Chart Section11 Buysell Price
×
Chart Section11 Yoy All Landlords
Chart Section11 Yoy All Landlords
×
Chart Section11 Institutional
Chart Section11 Institutional
×
Chart Section11 Institutional Price
Chart Section11 Institutional Price
×
Chart Section11 Yoy Institutional
Chart Section11 Yoy Institutional
×
Chart Section12 Transactions
Chart Section12 Transactions
×
Chart Section12 Prices
Chart Section12 Prices
×
Chart Section12 Prices Detail
Chart Section12 Prices Detail