Emery (UT) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

Landlords command an exceptionally high share of the SFR market in Emery County, owning 2,426 properties, which accounts for 90.1% of the total 2,692 SFR properties available. This reveals an almost entirely investor-driven housing landscape.

Individual landlords are the undisputed backbone of the rental market, holding 2,391 SFR properties, representing 98.6% of all investor-owned holdings. In contrast, company-owned properties are negligible at just 43, or 1.8% of the investor portfolio.

The sheer number of individual landlords, totaling 3,340, far outweighs the 49 company landlords, underscoring the prevalence of small-scale, private ownership in the county's rental sector.

Every single investor-owned property in Emery County, totaling 2,426 properties, is currently rented, signaling a market entirely focused on providing rental housing rather than other uses.

A significant majority of landlord acquisitions are cash transactions, with 2,170 properties (89.4% of all investor-owned SFR) being purchased outright. Only 256 properties (10.6%) were acquired with financing, indicating a preference for low-leverage investing or ample capital availability among landlords in this region.

For Q4 2025, the data indicates a complete halt in property acquisitions within Emery County, with zero distinct SFR properties purchased by any buyer type. This lack of activity prevents any current quarter analysis of landlord versus homeowner acquisition prices.

Consequently, there is no data to compare landlord acquisition prices against those of traditional homeowners or the overall market for Q4 2025. This makes it impossible to determine any current landlord discounts or premiums.

Similarly, the absence of quarterly acquisition data precludes any insight into how the landlord-homeowner price gap might have changed quarter-over-quarter, or any broader acquisition price trends by timeframe for 2024 or 2020-2023.

Without acquisition data, it is not possible to determine if individual and company landlords typically pay different prices, nor can any price appreciation from the pandemic era to Q4 be calculated.

The complete lack of Q4 acquisitions also means no new properties were acquired by any timeframe, signaling a static or frozen market in terms of new inventory accumulation during this period.

In summary, the market's complete inactivity in Q4 2025 means all questions related to acquisition pricing and trends for this period cannot be addressed from the provided data.

Emery County experienced a complete absence of SFR purchase activity in Q4 2025, with zero total SFR purchases recorded by any buyer type. This indicates a frozen market for new acquisitions during the quarter.

Correspondingly, landlords also recorded zero Q4 purchases, representing 0.0% of the market. This signals a complete halt in new portfolio growth or market entry for investor-owned properties.

Due to the lack of any purchases, both mom-and-pop landlords (Tier 01-04) and institutional investors (Tier 09) registered 0.0% of landlord purchases, meaning no activity across any investor segment in Q4.

The absence of activity extends to new landlords, with zero entities classified as single-property (Tier 01) landlords entering the market in Q4, highlighting a pause in market expansion.

Without any Q4 purchase data, it is impossible to determine the number of active entities per tier or the average properties per entity for this quarter, as all metrics remain at zero.

The overall market inactivity in Q4 2025 means no tier had any concentration of activity, as all purchase volumes were uniformly absent across the board.

Mom-and-pop landlords, encompassing Tiers 01-04 (1-10 properties), collectively own 100.0% of all investor-owned SFR properties in Emery County. This highlights an absolute dominance by small-scale investors, contradicting popular narratives of institutional control.

The distribution reveals a strong concentration at the lowest tier, with single-property landlords (Tier 01) owning 2,189 properties, accounting for 87.5% of the total investor-owned portfolio. This makes first-time and single-property investors the primary force in the local rental market.

Institutional investors (Tier 09), those with 1000+ properties, have a near-nonexistent presence, holding only 1 property, which translates to 0.0% of the total investor-owned SFR in the county. This demonstrates a clear lack of large-scale corporate investment in this specific market.

The relatively small number of properties held by two-property (238 properties, 9.5%) and small landlords (3-5 properties with 67 properties at 2.7%, and 6-10 properties with 6 properties at 0.2%) further reinforces the dominance of Tier 01.

Despite the clear ownership distribution, acquisition pricing data by tier is not available, making it impossible to determine if larger investors pay more or less than smaller landlords, or how prices have evolved over time across these tiers.

Individual investors maintain an overwhelming presence across all observed portfolio tiers in Emery County, consistently holding the vast majority of properties within each tier. Companies never achieve majority ownership in any tier.

Even in the relatively larger 'Small landlord (6-10 properties)' tier, individual owners still represent a substantial 83.3% (5 properties), with companies holding only 16.7% (1 property). This indicates that even mid-size portfolios are predominantly managed by individuals.

The concentration of individual ownership is particularly pronounced in the smaller tiers, with single-property landlords (Tier 01) being 98.2% individual (2,156 properties) versus 1.8% company (40 properties).

Similarly, the 'Two-property' tier shows 99.6% individual ownership (237 properties) against 0.4% company (1 property), and the 'Small landlord (3-5 properties)' tier is 98.5% individual (66 properties) versus 1.5% company (1 property).

This consistent pattern across all tiers signifies that individual investors are the foundational and dominant force across all scales of landlord operations in Emery County, from single-property owners to those with up to ten properties.

Due to missing data for 'Tier + Type Pricing', it is not possible to analyze how individual vs company acquisition prices differ within each tier or how growth patterns may vary by owner type.

All listed sub-geographies within Emery County exhibit exceptionally high landlord ownership rates, revealing a market where investors dominate almost every local segment. UT-Emery-84516 stands out with 97.4% of its SFR properties being investor-owned, the highest in the county.

The regions with the highest number of investor-owned properties are also characterized by high ownership rates, indicating a strong correlation between high concentration and high penetration. UT-Emery-84528 leads in count with 497 properties, while maintaining a substantial 89.9% investor ownership rate.

Four of the top five regions by count (UT-Emery-84528, 84537, 84523, 84513) also appear in the top five by investor ownership percentage, highlighting consistent investor focus across these areas.

Even the lowest listed investor ownership rate among the top 5 by count is UT-Emery-84518 at 87.8%, which is still an extremely high percentage compared to typical national or state averages, emphasizing the unique investor-centric nature of Emery County.

The data clearly demonstrates that landlord activity is not concentrated in just one or two hot spots but is a pervasive characteristic across all observed zip codes within Emery County. This suggests a deeply established investor market rather than emergent trends in isolated areas.

A comprehensive analysis of historical transaction data for all landlords is not possible, as the provided information for 'ALL LANDLORD TRANSACTIONS' is entirely empty. This severely limits insights into market trends and investor behavior over time.

Similarly, there is no available data for 'INSTITUTIONAL (1000+) TRANSACTIONS'. This prevents any specific assessment of whether large-scale investors are accumulating or divesting properties, or how their activity might differ from the overall landlord market.

Consequently, it is impossible to determine if landlords overall are net buyers or net sellers, as no buy or sell transaction counts are provided. The buy/sell ratio, a key indicator of market direction, cannot be calculated.

The absence of transaction details also means there is no information on the percentage of buy or sell transactions that occur between landlords, which would typically shed light on market liquidity and internal trading dynamics.

Without buy and sell prices for different timeframes, it is not possible to infer implied profit margins or analyze how pricing strategies have evolved for either all landlords or institutional investors over time.

The lack of historical transaction data makes it impossible to track changes in transaction volume or patterns across different timeframes (e.g., Q4 vs Q3, annual trends), leaving a significant gap in understanding market momentum.

Overall, the missing transaction data means no insights can be generated regarding historical buying/selling positions, inter-landlord trading, average prices, or transactional trends for any investor type in Emery County.

Emery County experienced a complete cessation of real estate transactions in Q4 2025, with zero total SFR transactions recorded. This indicates an entirely stalled market for property exchanges during the quarter.

As a result, landlords accounted for 0.0% of all Q4 transactions, having made no purchases or sales during this period. This reflects a complete pause in landlord market engagement.

Given the absence of transactions, there are no meaningful insights into how transaction volumes might vary across investor tiers, as all tiers reported zero activity.

Similarly, the average purchase prices by tier for Q4 were uniformly $0, as no properties were bought. This prevents any comparison of pricing strategies among different investor sizes.

The lack of transactions also means there was no inter-landlord trading activity, making it impossible to assess market liquidity or the percentage of properties bought from other landlords by any tier.

Without any Q4 transactions, it is impossible to determine the price spread between the highest and lowest tier, as all transaction counts and prices remain at zero for the quarter.

The complete inactivity in Q4 2025 signifies a market on hold, with no new properties changing hands among landlords or other buyers.