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

Investors have a substantial footprint in Labette County, owning 2,700 SFR properties, which constitutes 37.1% of the total 7,271 SFRs in the market.

The ownership structure is heavily skewed towards private individuals, who own 2,105 properties (78.0%), compared to companies, which own 609 properties (22.6%).

This individual dominance is also reflected in the entity count, with 2,294 individual landlords compared to just 247 company landlords, a ratio of over 9 to 1.

A striking financial characteristic of this market is the complete absence of financing; 100% of the 2,700 investor-owned properties are held in cash.

The portfolio is clearly investment-focused, with 2,587 properties classified as rented, indicating a strong rental market presence by these owners.

The most significant finding regarding acquisition pricing is the complete absence of transactional data for Q4 2025 in Labette County. With zero properties purchased by landlords, no average acquisition price could be calculated.

This lack of activity prevents any comparison between landlord and traditional homeowner purchase prices for the current quarter, a key metric for understanding investor market advantages.

Similarly, it is impossible to analyze price gap trends from previous quarters, as no recent comparative data exists.

The only historical price point available is an average of $67,052 from the 2020-2023 period, but this figure is associated with zero property purchases, indicating a data anomaly or a prolonged period of low transactional volume.

The data strongly suggests that Labette County is an extremely illiquid market for investor-led SFR transactions, with pricing dynamics that cannot be currently measured.

The Labette County real estate market experienced a complete standstill in Q4 2025, with a total of zero SFR properties purchased by any buyer type.

Consequently, landlords' share of the market was 0.0%, as they acquired zero properties during this period.

This lack of activity was universal across all investor sizes; mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) recorded zero purchases.

Likewise, institutional investors (1,000+ properties) were completely inactive, purchasing zero properties in Q4.

The data indicates no new market entrants, as the number of new single-property landlords (Tier 01) was zero, highlighting a dormant investment landscape.

The investor landscape in Labette County is defined by small-scale owners, with mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) controlling a combined 84.0% of all investor-held SFRs.

Single-property landlords are the largest group, holding 1,542 properties, which accounts for 55.4% of the entire investor portfolio on its own.

Mid-size landlords (11-100 properties) represent a smaller but notable segment, owning 440 properties, or 15.8% of the total.

The presence of large-scale investors is virtually non-existent. The institutional tier (1,000+ properties) holds only 2 properties, making up just 0.1% of the market.

This distribution highlights a highly fragmented market, heavily reliant on small, local investors rather than large corporations.

Individual investors form the bedrock of the Labette County market, particularly in smaller portfolio tiers. They own 91.9% of single-property holdings and 83.7% of two-property portfolios.

The balance of power begins to shift as portfolio sizes increase. The crossover point occurs in the 6-10 property tier, where companies narrowly take the majority with 95 properties (50.5%) compared to individuals' 93 properties (49.5%).

Company ownership becomes more pronounced in larger tiers, such as the 21-50 property bracket, where they control 161 properties, a commanding 68.5% share.

Despite this shift, individuals maintain a presence even in the mid-size 11-20 property tier, holding a majority stake of 56.8% (104 properties).

Due to the lack of transactions in Q4, a price comparison between individual and company buyers within these tiers is not possible.

The majority of investor-owned properties in Labette County are located in the 67357 zip code, which is home to 1,733 properties, or 64.2% of the entire investor portfolio.

While 67357 leads in raw numbers, the 67336 zip code has the highest concentration of investors, with an ownership rate of 47.2%.

There is a significant overlap between the top regions by count and by percentage, indicating that investors are heavily concentrated in a few key areas.

The top five zip codes by ownership rate all show remarkably high investor penetration: 67336 (47.2%), 67330 (40.6%), 67342 (38.8%), 67357 (37.6%), and 67332 (34.4%).

This geographic concentration suggests that specific neighborhoods or towns within the county are primary targets for rental property investment.

A critical gap in the data for Labette County is the complete absence of historical transaction records for all landlord types. This prevents any analysis of long-term market dynamics.

Without this data, it is impossible to determine whether landlords have historically been net buyers or sellers, a key indicator of market sentiment and portfolio growth.

Analysis of inter-landlord trading, which reveals market liquidity and asset repositioning, cannot be performed.

Furthermore, trends in buying and selling volume over different timeframes (e.g., quarterly, annually) cannot be identified, obscuring the market's response to economic shifts.

Similarly, institutional investor transaction patterns remain unknown, making it impossible to assess their historical strategy in the county.

The final quarter of 2025 was marked by a complete lack of transactional activity in the Labette County SFR market, with total transactions numbering zero.

This market-wide stasis meant that landlords were involved in 0.0% of transactions, as no properties were bought or sold by any party.

Activity was non-existent across all investor tiers, from single-property owners to the largest institutional players.

Consequently, it is impossible to analyze Q4 purchasing behavior, such as average prices paid by different investor tiers or the prevalence of landlord-to-landlord sales.

The data portrays a market in a state of hibernation for Q4, with neither accumulation nor disposition of assets by the investor community.