Plymouth (IA) Investor Pulse Report (2026-Q1)

In Plymouth County, investors own 837 Single Family Residential properties, which constitutes 11.0% of the total 7,607 SFRs in the market. This portfolio is heavily weighted towards individual ownership, a common pattern in smaller markets.

Individual landlords control 662 properties, or 79.1% of the investor-owned housing stock, while companies own the remaining 196 properties (23.4%). This 4-to-1 ratio underscores the grassroots nature of real estate investing in the area.

The data on landlord entities reinforces this finding, with 752 individual landlords compared to only 105 company entities. This indicates that the average company portfolio (1.9 properties) is slightly larger than the average individual portfolio (0.9 properties), but both are small in scale.

The operational strategy for these holdings is clearly rental-focused, with 800 of the 837 properties classified as rented. This near-total rental penetration highlights the role these properties play in the local housing supply.

A strong preference for all-cash ownership is evident, with 670 properties owned outright versus 167 that are financed. This suggests many local investors operate without leverage, potentially indicating a more conservative or mature investor base.

Investor purchasing power in Plymouth County is defined by a massive price advantage over traditional homeowners. In Q1 2026, landlords paid an average of just $160,000, which is 43.0% less than the $280,543 paid by homeowners, a raw discount of $120,543 per property.

This is not a new phenomenon; the price gap has been consistently wide. In Q3 2025, the discount was 46.5% ($141,125 vs. $263,743), and in Q2 2025 it was 33.8% ($172,500 vs. $260,559). An extreme example occurred in Q1 2025, when landlords secured properties for 79.4% less than homeowners.

This pattern suggests investors are successfully targeting undervalued or distressed properties that fall outside the typical retail market, allowing them to acquire assets well below market rate.

While prices have appreciated since the 2020-2023 period average of $128,846, the recent Q1 2026 price of $160,000 still represents a significant value proposition compared to what an average homebuyer pays.

The consistency of this discount across multiple quarters points to a structural advantage for investors, likely stemming from sourcing strategies, cash purchasing power, or a focus on properties requiring significant renovation.

Landlord acquisition activity in Plymouth County was extremely subdued in the last quarter. Of the 42 total SFR properties sold, investors purchased only 2, capturing a minimal 2.4% market share of new purchases.

The entirety of this purchasing activity came from existing small landlords. One property was acquired by an investor in the 3-5 property tier, and the other by an investor in the 6-10 property tier.

Notably, there were no new investors entering the market, as the single-property (Tier 01) category saw zero acquisitions. This signals a potential pause in new landlord formation in the county.

The lack of activity extends to larger investors. Mid-size and institutional tiers were completely inactive, with zero properties purchased by any landlord holding more than 10 properties.

This low purchase volume, combined with the concentration in existing small landlord tiers, suggests a cautious and highly selective acquisition environment among Plymouth County's investor base.

The investor landscape in Plymouth County is unequivocally controlled by small-scale operators. Mom-and-pop landlords, defined as those owning 1-10 properties, hold a combined 95.1% of the investor SFR housing stock.

The single-property landlord (Tier 01) is the largest and most significant segment, owning 498 properties. This represents 56.0% of all investor-held SFRs, highlighting that the market is built on first-time or small-scale investors.

The ownership concentration rapidly decreases in larger tiers. Landlords with 2 properties own 10.6%, those with 3-5 properties own 16.4%, and those with 6-10 properties own 12.0%.

Beyond the 10-property mark, ownership becomes negligible. The 11-20 property tier accounts for just 4.7% of holdings, and there is virtually no presence of mid-size or large investors.

Confirming the hyper-local nature of this market, institutional investors (1,000+ properties) have a 0.0% market share, a stark contrast to narratives of corporate landlord takeovers in other regions.

Unlike many markets where companies dominate larger portfolios, individual investors in Plymouth County are the majority owners across every single investor tier. There is no crossover point where corporate ownership becomes the norm.

In the foundational single-property tier, individuals represent 450 of the 498 properties, an 89.1% share. This dominance continues through the two-property tier (74.5% individual) and the 3-5 property tier (72.6% individual).

Corporate ownership gets closest to parity in the 6-10 property tier, where companies own 56 properties (48.3%) compared to individuals' 60 properties (51.7%). However, individuals regain a clear majority in the next tier up (11-20 properties), holding 54.8%.

This data indicates that even as local investors scale their portfolios, they tend to do so under personal ownership rather than through corporate entities like LLCs.

The lack of a corporate crossover point is a defining feature of the Plymouth County market, suggesting a strong preference for direct, individual ownership and a lack of larger, professionally structured investment operations.

Geographic analysis reveals that investor ownership in Plymouth County is not evenly distributed but is instead focused on specific sub-markets. The zip code 51031 is the clear epicenter of activity, with 420 investor-owned SFRs.

In this top zip code, investors own 11.3% of the housing stock, indicating a significant presence. The second-largest concentration is in zip code 51028, which holds 89 investor properties.

Interestingly, the area with the second-highest property count (51028) actually has the highest known ownership *rate*. At 14.6%, investors have a deeper market penetration there than in the larger 51031 market.

This contrast between the leader by volume (51031) and the leader by percentage (51028) suggests different market dynamics, perhaps with 51028 being a smaller market that is more saturated with rental properties.

The available assessor data for other zip codes was incomplete, but the clear concentration in these two areas points to specific neighborhoods or towns being investor hotspots.

A significant shift in market behavior occurred in early 2026, as landlords in Plymouth County transitioned from accumulators to distributors of property. In Q1 2026, investors sold 4 properties while only purchasing 2, making them net sellers by a margin of 2 properties.

This recent activity marks a sharp reversal from the established trend. Throughout 2024, landlords were aggressive net buyers, acquiring 48 properties while selling only 12, for a net gain of 36 properties.

The buying momentum continued, albeit at a slower pace, through 2025. During that year, landlords added a net of 20 properties to their portfolios, with 33 buys against 13 sells.

The sudden flip to a net-seller position in the first quarter of 2026 could signal a belief among local investors that the market has peaked, or a desire to realize gains after a period of price appreciation.

Given the complete absence of institutional investors in the market, this trend is driven entirely by the decisions of local, small-scale landlords who have collectively decided to begin divesting.

In Q1 2026, landlord transactions constituted a very small fraction of the overall market activity in Plymouth County. With just 2 landlord-involved deals out of 55 total transactions, investors represented only 3.6% of the market.

The entirety of this activity was conducted by small landlords. One transaction was made by an investor in the 3-5 property tier, and the other by an investor in the 6-10 property tier.

Both purchases were made at an average price of $160,000, reinforcing the pricing advantage these investors hold compared to the wider market of traditional homebuyers.

A key detail from these transactions is the sourcing of properties. None of the properties acquired by investors were purchased from other landlords. This 0% inter-landlord transaction rate means buyers were sourcing deals from homeowners or other avenues, not from fellow investors selling off their portfolios.

The minimal transaction volume, combined with the lack of new entrants or institutional participation, paints a picture of a quiet, selective, and opportunistic investor market in the first quarter.