Green (WI) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

Investor ownership in Green County's housing market is minimal, with only 17 out of 9,474 Single-Family Residential (SFR) properties held by landlords, representing a market penetration of just 0.2%.

The investor landscape is heavily skewed towards individuals, who own 13 properties (76.5%), while companies hold the remaining 4 properties (23.5%).

This individual dominance is also reflected in the entity count, where 20 of the 24 landlords are individuals, underscoring the small-scale, local nature of rental ownership in the county.

Cash is the preferred acquisition method, with 11 properties owned outright, compared to 6 that are financed. This suggests a low-leverage investment strategy among local landlords.

Within the small portfolio, at least 5 properties are confirmed rentals, indicating that a significant portion of these investor-owned homes serve the local rental market.

A complete lack of recent transaction data for landlords in Green County prevents any analysis of acquisition pricing. There were no recorded purchases in Q4 2025 or other recent periods.

Consequently, a comparison between landlord and traditional homeowner purchase prices cannot be performed. This absence of data points to an extremely low or nonexistent level of investor acquisition activity.

While historical data from 2020-2023 shows a placeholder average price of $1,030,000, it is associated with zero properties, indicating it's an anomaly or irrelevant data point for this market.

The inability to track a price gap between landlords and homeowners signifies a market where investors are not actively competing for properties in a way that would create discernible pricing patterns.

Without transaction data, it is impossible to determine price appreciation trends for the investor-owned portfolio in Green County.

The investor market in Green County was completely static in Q4 2025, with landlords acquiring zero of the 36 SFR properties sold during the period.

This lack of activity means that landlords had a 0.0% market share of purchases, indicating a complete pause in portfolio growth from outside acquisitions.

All investor tiers, from new single-property landlords (Tier 01) to institutional investors (Tier 09), were inactive, with zero properties purchased across the board.

The absence of any Tier 01 purchases signifies that no new landlords entered the Green County market during the last quarter of 2025.

This dormant quarter suggests that local investors are either holding their current portfolios or that the market conditions are not favorable for new rental property investment.

The investor market structure in Green County is overwhelmingly controlled by small-scale landlords. Mom-and-pop investors (Tiers 01-04, holding 1-10 properties) own 82.4% of the 17 investor-held SFRs.

The largest single tier is the 'small landlord' category (3-5 properties), which alone accounts for 9 properties, or 52.9% of the entire investor portfolio.

Single-property landlords (Tier 01) make up the second-largest group, holding 5 properties and representing 29.4% of investor-owned housing.

In a significant market structure anomaly, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) own 2 properties, constituting a disproportionately high 11.8% share for such a small, localized market.

Due to the lack of recent transaction data, it's not possible to analyze how acquisition prices vary by tier or if buying patterns have shifted over time.

Individual investors form the bedrock of Green County's rental market, completely dominating the smallest portfolio tiers.

All 5 properties in the single-property (Tier 01) category are owned by individuals, showing that market entry is exclusively a non-corporate activity.

In the most significant tier (3-5 properties), individuals own 8 of the 9 properties, an 88.9% share, further cementing their control over the local market.

Company ownership is exceptionally rare, with only one property in the 3-5 property tier held by a corporate entity. This indicates no significant corporate investment strategy is active in the county.

Given the sparse data, there is no tier where companies become the majority owners, and it is not possible to compare acquisition prices between individuals and companies.

Investor-owned properties in Green County are not concentrated in any single area but are scattered in very small numbers across several zip codes.

The highest counts of investor-owned SFRs are found in Brodhead (53520) and Belleville (53508), each with just 3 properties.

Albany (53502) follows with 2 investor-owned properties, illustrating the hyper-local and minimal scale of rental ownership.

Investor ownership as a percentage of total housing stock is extremely low. The highest rate is in Belleville (53508) at just 0.4%, demonstrating that landlords are not a significant market force in any part of the county.

Other zip codes such as Monroe (53570) and Browntown (53522) show minimal investor presence, reinforcing the pattern of a market dominated by traditional homeowners.

There is a complete lack of historical transaction data for landlords in Green County, indicating a market with very low liquidity and infrequent trading activity.

Without buy and sell records, it is impossible to calculate a buy/sell ratio, and therefore we cannot determine whether landlords have historically been net buyers or net sellers.

Analysis of inter-landlord transactions is also not possible. The data does not show what percentage of purchases may have come from other landlords, a key indicator of market maturity.

Similarly, for institutional investors in Tier 09, no transaction data exists, so their strategy of accumulation or divestment within the county remains unknown.

The absence of this data is itself an insight, pointing to a stable, hold-oriented investor base rather than an active, transactional market.

In Q4 2025, the investor market in Green County was completely dormant, with landlords accounting for none of the 54 total SFR transactions.

This zero-activity quarter means there is no data to compare purchase volumes or strategies across different investor tiers.

Average purchase prices by tier cannot be calculated, as no tier, from single-property owners to institutional firms, made a purchase.

The level of inter-landlord trading was zero, as no properties were bought or sold by investors during this period.

This lack of transactional activity reinforces the portrait of a buy-and-hold market where investors are not actively trading assets or expanding their portfolios through new acquisitions.