Anderson (KS) Investor Pulse Report (2025-Q4)

In Anderson County, KS, investors hold a significant 31.5% of the single-family residential market, totaling 684 properties out of 2,174 available.

The market is overwhelmingly characterized by small, individual investors rather than corporations. Individuals own 597 properties, constituting 87.3% of the investor-owned portfolio, compared to just 87 properties (12.7%) owned by companies.

A defining feature of this market is the complete absence of leverage; 100% of the 684 investor-owned properties are held in cash, with zero recorded as financed. This suggests a fiscally conservative or debt-averse investor base.

The vast majority of these holdings are actively used as rentals. A total of 669 properties are designated as rented, confirming the portfolio's focus on providing housing supply to the local market.

The entity count further underscores the dominance of small operators, with 726 individual landlords compared to only 49 company landlords, a ratio of nearly 15 to 1.

Analysis of acquisition pricing is not possible for Q4 2025, as there were zero recorded SFR purchases by either landlords or traditional homeowners in Anderson County.

The absence of transactional data prevents any comparison of purchasing power or discounts between investor types for the current period.

Historical data indicates an average acquisition price of $94,564 for properties purchased between 2020 and 2023, but this figure has no recent counterpart for trend analysis.

The complete halt in market activity is the most significant finding, suggesting a period of extremely low liquidity or a lack of available inventory meeting buyer criteria.

Investor purchasing activity in Anderson County came to a complete standstill in Q4 2025, with landlords acquiring zero new properties.

This lack of activity means landlords had a 0.0% share of the total 0 SFR purchases that occurred in the market during the quarter.

No new landlords entered the market, as the single-property (Tier 01) segment recorded zero purchases.

Similarly, both mom-and-pop (Tiers 01-04) and mid-size to institutional tiers showed no acquisition activity, reflecting a market-wide pause in investor growth.

The data points to a frozen market where neither new nor existing investors expanded their portfolios during the final quarter of 2025.

The investor landscape in Anderson County is unequivocally dominated by small-scale landlords. Mom-and-pop investors (1-10 properties) own a combined 89.9% of all investor-held SFRs.

First-time or single-property landlords are the backbone of the market, with 468 properties making up 66.3% of the entire investor portfolio.

In stark contrast, there is no institutional investor (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) presence in the county, highlighting its distinctly local and non-corporate character.

Mid-size landlords (11-50 properties) represent a small fraction of the market, collectively holding only 10.0% of properties (71 total).

Due to the lack of recent transactions, it is not possible to compare acquisition prices across different tiers for the current period.

Individual landlords maintain majority ownership across all portfolio sizes in Anderson County, underscoring their deep-rooted presence in the local market. There is no crossover point where companies become the dominant owner type.

In the largest tier present in the county (21-50 properties), individuals still hold a strong majority with 22 properties (64.7%) compared to companies' 12 properties (35.3%).

The dominance of individuals is most pronounced at the entry level, where they own 436 of the 468 single-property portfolios, a staggering 93.2% share.

Companies have their strongest foothold in the 11-20 property tier, yet still only account for 43.2% of the properties in that segment.

No recent pricing data is available to compare acquisition strategies or price points between individual and company investors within these tiers.

Investor activity in Anderson County is not evenly distributed, with significant concentration in a few key zip codes. The 66032 zip code is the epicenter of investor ownership by volume, containing 397 investor-held SFRs.

While 66032 leads in raw count, the 66091 zip code exhibits the highest market penetration, where investors own 51.7% of all SFR properties.

Other areas show intense investor focus, with ownership rates well above the county average. These include 66039 (46.2%), 66033 (45.1%), and 66015 (37.8%).

This pattern reveals that while one zip code (66032) contains the bulk of investor properties at a 26.9% rate, several smaller zip codes represent more saturated rental markets.

The data for zip code 66014 is incomplete, preventing a full analysis of that specific area.

There is no available historical transaction data for landlords in Anderson County, making it impossible to analyze long-term market dynamics.

Key metrics such as the buy/sell ratio cannot be calculated, so it is unknown whether landlords have historically been net buyers or net sellers in this market.

The percentage of transactions that occur between landlords, a key indicator of market liquidity and sophistication, cannot be determined.

Similarly, it is not possible to compare average buy prices to average sell prices over time to understand potential investor profit margins or market appreciation.

This data gap suggests the market may be characterized by low transaction volumes or a prevalence of off-market deals not captured in the dataset.

In Q4 2025, the real estate market in Anderson County was effectively frozen, with zero total transactions recorded for single-family residential properties.

Consequently, landlords were involved in 0.0% of all transactions, as there was no market activity to participate in.

All investor tiers, from single-property landlords to larger operators, recorded zero transactions, indicating a universal pause in buying and selling.

No data exists for average purchase prices by tier for the quarter, as no properties were purchased.

Analysis of inter-landlord trading is also not possible, as the complete lack of activity provides no insight into property sourcing strategies for the period.