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

Investors hold a significant 22.2% share of the Single-Family Residential market in Franklin County, owning 1,546 out of 6,979 total SFR properties.

The ownership landscape is dominated by individual investors, who own 1,170 properties, making up 75.7% of the investor portfolio, compared to the 408 properties (26.4%) owned by companies.

A defining characteristic of this market is the complete absence of leverage; 100% of the 1,546 investor-owned properties are held in cash, with zero properties recorded as financed. This points to a highly capitalized and debt-averse investor base.

The portfolio is heavily geared towards rental income, with 1,479 properties (95.7%) actively rented. This high rental penetration underscores a buy-and-hold strategy focused on long-term cash flow rather than speculative flips.

The entity count further reveals the market's granular nature, with 1,346 individual landlords compared to just 191 company landlords, a ratio of over 7 to 1.

Analysis of acquisition pricing and trends is not possible for Franklin County, as investors recorded zero property purchases in Q4 2025.

Due to the lack of transactions, a price comparison between landlords and traditional homeowners cannot be conducted for the current quarter.

Looking at historical data provides no further clarity, as there were also zero landlord acquisitions recorded during the 2020-2023 period.

The complete absence of acquisition data across recent and historical timeframes suggests a market with extremely low investor turnover and liquidity.

This lack of activity prevents any analysis of price appreciation or the potential discounts landlords might achieve compared to other buyers.

The investor acquisition market in Franklin County was completely static in Q4 2025, with landlords purchasing zero properties out of a total of zero SFRs sold in the market.

This lack of activity was universal across all investor sizes, from the smallest mom-and-pop landlords to the largest institutional players, none of whom made any new acquisitions.

Consequently, no new landlords entered the market by purchasing their first investment property during the quarter.

The data points to a total freeze in investor buying activity, signaling either a lack of desirable inventory, unfavorable market conditions, or a long-term hold strategy from the existing owner base.

Without any purchases, the market share for landlord acquisitions was 0.0%, a stark indicator of the stalled state of the investment landscape.

The investor landscape in Franklin County is overwhelmingly dominated by small-scale 'mom-and-pop' landlords (1-10 properties), who collectively own 85.0% of all investor-held SFRs.

Single-property landlords form the bedrock of the market, holding 898 properties, which accounts for a 56.3% majority of the entire investor portfolio.

Mid-size landlords (11-100 properties) control a smaller but notable segment, owning a combined 239 properties or 15.0% of the investor-owned housing stock.

Institutional presence is virtually non-existent, with the 1,000+ property tier comprising just a single property, representing only 0.1% of the market. This highlights a near-total absence of large corporate landlords.

Pricing analysis by tier is unavailable due to the lack of transaction data, but the ownership structure clearly shows a market driven by local, small-portfolio investors rather than large-scale operations.

Individual investors are the primary owners in smaller portfolio tiers, holding 88.6% of all single-property investments and 67.2% of two-property portfolios.

A significant strategic shift occurs in the 11-20 property tier, where companies become the majority owners for the first time, holding 100 properties (50.8%) compared to 97 properties (49.2%) held by individuals.

This crossover point suggests that as portfolios scale beyond 10 properties, incorporating becomes a more common strategy for liability protection and operational efficiency.

Even in the 6-10 property tier, company ownership becomes more pronounced, accounting for 39.4% of properties, a significant jump from the smaller tiers.

The data clearly illustrates a market where individuals initiate investment activity, but corporate structures are adopted as portfolio sizes grow and management becomes more complex.

Investor activity in Franklin County is highly concentrated, with the 66067 zip code alone accounting for 960 investor-owned properties, representing 20.6% of its local SFR market.

The zip code with the second-highest count is 66092, with 259 investor-owned properties and a higher ownership rate of 26.3%.

Highlighting the difference between volume and penetration, the 66080 zip code has the highest rate of investor ownership at 37.4%, despite having a smaller absolute number of properties.

Conversely, zip codes like 66076 have a more moderate investor presence, with 82 properties making up 17.8% of its market.

This geographic analysis reveals distinct sub-markets within the county, some with high raw counts of investor properties and others with a much deeper market penetration rate.

Historical transaction data for landlords in Franklin County is unavailable, preventing any analysis of long-term buying and selling trends.

It is impossible to determine whether landlords have historically been net buyers or net sellers, as there are no recorded buy or sell transactions in the dataset.

Similarly, institutional investor (1,000+ tier) transaction patterns cannot be assessed, including their net position or average pricing.

The lack of data on inter-landlord trades means the degree of liquidity within the investor community itself cannot be measured.

This complete absence of historical transaction data strongly suggests a 'buy and hold' market culture, where properties are rarely traded between investors or sold on the open market.

The transaction market for investors in Franklin County was entirely inactive in Q4 2025, with landlords participating in zero transactions.

This inactivity was consistent across all segments of the investor market, with mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) and institutional investors (Tier 09) both recording zero transactions.

As a result of no purchasing activity, analysis of average purchase price by tier is not possible for the quarter.

There was no inter-landlord trading activity, meaning no properties were bought from other landlords, which points to a lack of churn within the existing investor pool.

The complete halt in transactions underscores the findings from other sections, depicting a stable, long-hold investor market with minimal turnover in the last quarter.