Jefferson (WA) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

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

Market Overview

Total SFR Properties in Jefferson (WA)
12,660
Total Investors in Jefferson (WA)
6,215
Investor Owned SFR in Jefferson (WA)
4,229(33.4%)
Individual Landlords
Landlords
5,709
SFR Owned
3,849
Corporate Landlords
Landlords
506
SFR Owned
593
Understanding Property Counts

Distinct Count Methodology: The total 4,229 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 Investors Dominate Jefferson County, Paying 13.4% Premium to Acquire Over Half of Homes Sold
Investors own 4,229 single-family properties in Jefferson County (33.4% of the market), with mom-and-pop landlords controlling a staggering 97.9% of that portfolio. In Q4, these small investors drove market activity, purchasing 56.8% of all homes sold and paying a 13.4% premium over traditional homeowners, while institutional investors remained completely inactive.
Landlord Owned Current Holdings
Landlords own 4,229 SFR properties, with individual investors comprising 91.0% of all holdings.
A significant 71.9% of these properties (3,040) are owned outright with cash, compared to just 28.1% (1,189) that are financed. The portfolio is intensely focused on rentals, with 99.1% of all investor-owned properties classified as non-owner-occupied.
Landlord vs Traditional Homeowners
Investors paid a 13.4% premium over homeowners in Q4, averaging $771,855 per property.
This $91,042 premium is a sharp reversal from earlier in the year, when investors secured a 10.8% discount in Q2. This trend indicates a significant shift towards more aggressive bidding by investors as the year progressed. Landlord acquisition prices have appreciated 17.5% from the 2020-2023 average of $615,421 to $722,960 in 2025.
Current Quarter Purchases
Landlords captured a majority 56.8% share of all Q4 home purchases, acquiring 63 properties.
Mom-and-pop landlords were the sole drivers of this activity, accounting for 100% of investor purchases. This activity was led by the creation of 95 new single-property landlord entities, while institutional investors made zero acquisitions.
Ownership by Tier
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) overwhelmingly control 97.9% of investor-owned SFRs.
Single-property landlords alone own 3,778 properties, representing 87.1% of the entire investor portfolio. In stark contrast, institutional investors (1,000+ properties) have a negligible presence, owning just 4 properties, or 0.1% of the total.
Ownership by Tier & Type
Individuals own over 85% of smaller portfolios, but companies assume 97% control at the 6-10 property tier.
The data shows a clear strategic shift to incorporation as portfolios grow. Individuals own 89.6% of single-property portfolios and 85.8% of two-property portfolios, but only 3.0% of portfolios in the 6-10 property range. Institutional companies (1000+ tier) own 4 properties.
Geographic Distribution
Investor ownership is highly concentrated, with zip code 98368 alone containing 1,912 investor properties.
While 98368 leads in raw count, zip code 98320 exhibits the highest saturation, where investors own 55.9% of all SFRs. The top five zip codes by count hold a combined 3,787 properties, representing 89.5% of the county's total investor portfolio.
Historical Transactions
Investors are in a strong accumulation phase, buying 14.4 properties for every one they sold in Q4 2025.
This net buyer stance is accelerating, with the buy-to-sell ratio climbing from 10.3x in 2024 to 12.2x for the full year 2025. Institutional investors were technically net buyers with 2 purchases and 1 sale in 2025, but their activity was minimal.
Current Quarter Transactions
Landlords drove over half the market's Q4 activity, participating in 51.0% of all transactions.
Mom-and-pop investors accounted for 100% of these 101 landlord transactions, with zero activity from institutional investors. Single-property buyers paid an average of $723,119 and sourced only 8.2% of their purchases from other landlords, focusing on acquiring homes from the owner-occupied market.

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
Landlords own 4,229 SFR properties, with individual investors comprising 91.0% of all holdings.
Detailed Findings

Investors hold a substantial share of the housing market in Jefferson County, owning 4,229 properties, which accounts for 33.4% of the total 12,660 Single-Family Residential properties.

The market is overwhelmingly characterized by individual ownership, with 3,849 properties (91.0%) held by individuals compared to just 593 (14.0%) owned by companies.

This individual dominance is also reflected in the landlord entity count, where 5,709 individual landlords vastly outnumber the 506 company landlords operating in the county.

Investors in this market appear well-capitalized, with cash purchases outnumbering financed ones by more than two-to-one; 3,040 properties are owned free and clear versus 1,189 that carry a mortgage.

The investor portfolio is almost exclusively dedicated to rentals, with 4,191 of the 4,229 properties being rented, demonstrating a clear focus on generating rental income rather than short-term flipping or personal use.

Acquisition Timing & Pricing

Comparison of acquisition prices between landlords and traditional homeowners

Key Insight
Investors paid a 13.4% premium over homeowners in Q4, averaging $771,855 per property.
Detailed Findings

In a surprising departure from typical market behavior, landlords in Jefferson County paid a significant premium for properties in Q4 2025, with an average acquisition price of $771,855 compared to $680,813 for traditional homeowners—a difference of $91,042 (13.4%).

This Q4 premium marks a dramatic reversal in purchasing strategy from earlier in the year. In Q2, landlords were securing properties at a 10.8% discount ($83,425 less than homeowners), indicating a rapid shift from value-hunting to aggressive acquisition.

The trend shows landlords becoming increasingly willing to outbid homeowners, moving from an $83,425 discount in Q2 to a $53,521 premium in Q3, and culminating in the $91,042 premium in Q4.

Overall property values for investors have seen strong growth. The average purchase price in 2025 ($722,960) is up 3.8% from the 2024 average ($696,515).

The price appreciation is even more pronounced when compared to the pandemic-era boom, with the 2025 average price representing a 17.5% increase over the 2020-2023 average of $615,421.

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 captured a majority 56.8% share of all Q4 home purchases, acquiring 63 properties.
Detailed Findings

Investors were the dominant buyers in the Jefferson County housing market in Q4, purchasing 63 of the 111 total SFRs sold, which translates to a controlling 56.8% market share.

The entirety of this purchasing activity came from small-scale mom-and-pop investors (1-10 properties), who acquired 100% of the 63 properties bought by landlords.

The market saw a significant influx of new participants, with the single-property tier alone accounting for 62 purchases made by 95 distinct new landlord entities.

This surge in small investor activity occurred in a complete vacuum of institutional interest, as large investors with 1,000+ properties made zero acquisitions during the quarter.

The data clearly indicates that the growth in Jefferson County's rental market is being fueled exclusively by new and existing small-scale landlords, not by large corporations.

Ownership by Purchase Tier

Distribution of investor-owned properties across portfolio size tiers

Key Insight
Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) overwhelmingly control 97.9% of investor-owned SFRs.
Detailed Findings

The investor landscape in Jefferson County is defined by the dominance of small landlords. Investors with portfolios of 1-10 properties (mom-and-pop) own a combined 97.9% of all investor-held SFRs.

The market's foundation is built on single-property owners, who control 3,778 properties, an overwhelming 87.1% share of the total investor portfolio.

In sharp contrast, institutional investors (1,000+ properties) have a minimal footprint, holding only 4 properties, which constitutes just 0.1% of the investor market.

The ownership structure reveals a 'missing middle,' with a steep drop-off in property counts after the smallest tiers, reinforcing the market's reliance on grassroots investment.

This distribution challenges the narrative of corporate landlord dominance, proving that in Jefferson County, the rental market is almost entirely in the hands of small-scale, local investors.

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
Individuals own over 85% of smaller portfolios, but companies assume 97% control at the 6-10 property tier.
Detailed Findings

A distinct pattern emerges when analyzing ownership by entity type: individuals dominate smaller portfolios while companies control larger ones.

Individuals represent the vast majority of owners in the entry-level tiers, holding 3,550 properties (89.6%) in the single-property tier and 230 properties (85.8%) in the two-property tier.

A dramatic crossover occurs at the 6-10 property tier, where companies abruptly take over, owning 32 of the 33 properties (97.0%). This suggests a standard practice of incorporating for liability and operational efficiency once a portfolio reaches this size.

Even within the smallest tier, companies have a foothold, owning 411 properties, indicating that many investors choose to incorporate from their very first purchase.

This clear division highlights different strategies, with individual capital fueling entry into the market and corporate structures enabling portfolio expansion beyond a handful of properties.

Geographic Distribution

Regional breakdown of investor activity and ownership patterns

Key Insight
Investor ownership is highly concentrated, with zip code 98368 alone containing 1,912 investor properties.
Detailed Findings

Investor activity in Jefferson County is not evenly distributed but is instead highly concentrated in specific zip codes. The top five areas by property count account for 3,787 properties, or 89.5% of all investor-owned homes.

The zip code 98368 is the epicenter of investor ownership by volume, with 1,912 properties, though this represents a 30.0% ownership rate for that area.

For the highest market penetration, zip code 98320 stands out, with landlords owning a majority 55.9% of the single-family homes.

Several other zip codes show deep investor saturation, including 98376 (47.4%), 98331 (45.6%), and 98358 (41.4%), indicating that in these sub-markets, investors are the dominant players.

The data reveals a pattern of geographic focus, where investors target specific neighborhoods, leading to a high density of rental properties in certain pockets of the county.

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
Key Insight
Investors are in a strong accumulation phase, buying 14.4 properties for every one they sold in Q4 2025.
Detailed Findings

Landlords in Jefferson County are aggressively expanding their portfolios, demonstrated by a Q4 2025 buy-to-sell ratio of 14.4 (101 buys vs. 7 sells).

This strong net-buyer trend has been consistent and is accelerating, with the full-year 2025 ratio of 12.2x (390 buys vs. 32 sells) surpassing the 10.3x ratio from 2024 (370 buys vs. 36 sells).

The increasing ratio signals growing investor confidence and a strategic decision to accumulate assets in the local market rather than divest.

Institutional investors (1,000+ tier) are not a significant factor in this trend. Although they were net buyers in 2025, their activity was negligible, with just 2 acquisitions and 1 sale over the entire year.

The overwhelming transaction momentum comes from smaller landlords who are consistently adding to their holdings and deepening their investment in the county's housing stock.

Current Quarter Transactions

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

Key Insight
Landlords drove over half the market's Q4 activity, participating in 51.0% of all transactions.
Detailed Findings

Landlords were a primary driver of market liquidity in Q4, being a party to 101 of the 198 total transactions, for a 51.0% share of all activity.

The transaction landscape was exclusively shaped by mom-and-pop investors, who were responsible for 100% of landlord-related transactions during the quarter.

New and single-property investors were particularly active, executing 98 transactions at a high average purchase price of $723,119.

These small investors are primarily adding to the rental housing supply rather than trading existing rental stock. Only 8.2% of their purchases came from other landlords, suggesting most acquisitions were previously owner-occupied.

Institutional investors were completely absent from the transactional market in Q4, reinforcing their minimal role in Jefferson County's real estate dynamics.

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 Investors Dominate Jefferson County, Paying 13.4% Premium to Acquire Over Half of Homes Sold
Holdings
Landlords own 4,229 SFR properties, representing 33.4% of Jefferson County's market. The portfolio is overwhelmingly held by individual investors (3,849 properties, 91.0%) compared to companies (593 properties, 14.0%).
Pricing
In Q4 2025, landlords paid an average of $771,855, a 13.4% premium over traditional homeowners ($680,813), reversing a trend of securing discounts earlier in the year and signaling intense competition.
Activity
Investors acquired 56.8% of all homes sold in Q4 (63 properties), an effort driven entirely by small landlords. The quarter saw the emergence of 95 new single-property landlord entities, while institutions made zero purchases.
Market Share
Small mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) exert near-total control over the rental market, owning 97.9% of all investor-held housing, while institutional investors (1000+) own a mere 0.1%.
Ownership Type
Individual investors dominate smaller portfolios, but a strategic shift occurs at the 6-10 property tier, where companies take over majority ownership (97.0%), indicating incorporation becomes standard as portfolios scale.
Transactions
Investors are aggressive net buyers with a 14.4x buy-to-sell ratio in Q4 (101 buys vs 7 sells), and their accumulation is accelerating. Institutional investors are effectively non-participants in the transactional market.
Market Narrative

The investor landscape in Jefferson County, WA is substantial and uniquely defined by small-scale, individual ownership. Investors control 4,229 single-family homes, a significant 33.4% of the county's entire SFR market. This market is not driven by corporations; individual investors own 91.0% of these properties. The dominance of grassroots capital is most evident in the tier distribution: mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) control a staggering 97.9% of the investor-owned housing stock, while large institutional firms own a mere 0.1%.

In Q4 2025, these small investors displayed aggressive and confident behavior. They were the primary buyers in the market, acquiring 56.8% of all homes sold and participating in 51.0% of all transactions. In a surprising turn, they paid a 13.4% premium over traditional homeowners, signaling intense competition for limited inventory. This buying pressure is relentless, as reflected in a 14.4-to-1 buy-to-sell ratio, with transaction data showing an accelerating trend of portfolio accumulation over the past two years.

The key takeaway for the Jefferson County housing market is that its rental sector is being shaped almost exclusively by an expanding base of local, individual investors. The influx of 95 new single-property landlords in a single quarter, coupled with the near-total absence of institutional activity, paints a picture of a highly fragmented yet fiercely competitive grassroots market. This dynamic leads to high investor saturation in certain zip codes like 98320 (55.9% investor-owned) and means traditional homebuyers are frequently competing against well-capitalized small investors who are willing to pay a premium to expand their holdings.

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 17, 2026 at 11:30 PM
Data PeriodQ4 2025
Geography LevelCounty
GeographyJefferson (WA)
×
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