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

Investors hold a significant 17.1% share of the single-family residential market in Union County, totaling 650 properties out of 3,793.

The ownership structure is overwhelmingly dominated by 546 individual landlords, who control 502 properties (77.2%), compared to 71 company landlords holding 165 properties (25.4%). This highlights a market driven by local, small-scale participants rather than large corporations.

A key indicator of investor strategy in Union County is the preference for cash transactions. Investors own 503 properties free and clear, representing over three-quarters of their holdings, while only 147 properties are financed. This suggests a low-leverage, risk-averse approach to real estate investing in the area.

The portfolio is clearly focused on rental income, with 617 of the 650 properties (94.9%) classified as non-owner-occupied. This rental saturation underscores the vital role investors play in providing housing options within the county.

The ratio of individual to company landlords is approximately 7.7 to 1, reinforcing the characterization of this market as being primarily composed of small, independent operators.

A dramatic pricing disparity defines the Union County market, where investors in Q1 2026 paid an average of just $67,925 per property. This is a staggering $104,681, or 60.6%, below the $172,606 average paid by traditional homeowners, indicating a focus on distressed or lower-value assets.

This significant discount is not a recent anomaly but a persistent market feature. In the preceding three quarters, landlords consistently paid far less than homeowners, with discounts of 56.1% in Q1 2025, 66.7% in Q2 2025, and 68.5% in Q3 2025.

The price gap between what landlords and homeowners pay has remained consistently wide, fluctuating between $99,670 and $117,125 over the past year. This sustained difference points to separate submarkets operating in parallel, with investors specializing in properties that do not typically attract traditional buyers.

Comparing prices over time, the average investor purchase price in 2024 was $147,446, significantly higher than the pandemic-era (2020-2023) average of $68,912. The recent quarterly prices suggest a return to these lower price points after a temporary spike.

Investor purchasing activity constituted a notable portion of the market in Q4 2025, with landlords acquiring 5 of the 34 total SFRs sold, a market share of 14.7%.

The acquisition landscape is exclusively controlled by smaller investors. Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) were responsible for 4 of the 5 investor purchases (80.0%), demonstrating their role as the primary source of new rental inventory.

In a clear sign of a market dominated by small operators, institutional investors (Tier 09) had no purchasing activity in the quarter, holding 0.0% of the acquisition share.

New market entrants are a key feature of recent activity. Four new landlord entities purchased their first investment property, accounting for 40.0% of all landlord acquisitions in the quarter.

Activity was concentrated at the smallest and largest ends of the local scale. Single-property landlords and investors in the 6-10 property tier each bought 2 properties, representing a combined 80% of investor purchases.

The investor landscape in Union County is defined by small-scale ownership, with mom-and-pop landlords (portfolios of 1-10 properties) controlling 87.8% of all investor-held SFRs. This concentration underscores the absence of large-scale corporate ownership.

First-time or single-property landlords (Tier 01) form the bedrock of the market. This group alone owns 368 properties, which accounts for 54.6% of the entire investor-owned housing stock in the county.

The middle-tier of investors (11-100 properties) holds a modest 12.0% of properties, showing a sharp drop-off in portfolio size after the 10-property mark.

There is absolutely no institutional investor (1,000+ properties) presence in Union County. Their 0.0% market share stands in stark contrast to narratives of corporate landlords dominating housing markets.

The data clearly shows that as portfolio size increases, the number of properties held decreases dramatically. After the 3-5 property tier (111 properties), each subsequent tier represents a smaller and smaller fraction of the market, reinforcing the hyper-local, small-investor character of the area.

Individual investors are the primary owners across nearly all portfolio sizes in Union County. They own 90.1% of single-property rentals (337 properties) and continue to hold a majority share up to the 10-property tier.

The crossover point where corporate ownership becomes dominant occurs in the 11-20 property tier. In this segment, companies own 17 properties (56.7%), marking the only tier where they hold a majority stake.

Even in tiers where companies have a presence, individual ownership remains significant. For example, in the 6-10 property tier, individuals still own 54 of the 78 properties (69.2%), showing that even as portfolios grow, they are often personally held.

The data reveals a clear pattern: the smallest portfolios are almost exclusively owned by individuals, and corporate structures only become common as operational complexity increases with portfolio size, specifically past the 10-property threshold.

This distribution challenges the idea of anonymous corporations controlling rental housing. In Union County, the face of the landlord is predominantly that of a local individual investor.

The vast majority of investor-owned properties in Union County are located in a single zip code, 50801, which accounts for 511 homes and has an investor ownership rate of 17.1%.

However, the highest concentration of investor ownership is found in smaller surrounding zip codes. The 50831 zip code has the highest rate, with 37.5% of its housing stock owned by investors, signaling a pocket of intense rental activity.

Other areas with high investor penetration include the 50254 zip code, with a 23.0% ownership rate, and 50861, with a 22.7% rate. These figures highlight specific neighborhoods where investors play an outsized role in the local housing market.

There is a clear distinction between areas with the highest absolute count of investor properties and those with the highest percentage. The primary zip code (50801) has the volume, but smaller, more rural zip codes have a proportionally larger investor footprint.

The geographic distribution points to a core hub of investor activity supplemented by targeted acquisitions in specific high-rental-demand micro-markets within the county.

Investors in Union County are actively expanding their portfolios, demonstrating a strong net-buyer position. In 2025, they purchased 55 properties while selling only 15, a buy-to-sell ratio of nearly 3.7-to-1, signaling confidence in the local market.

The momentum of accumulation carried into the new year, with investors buying 8 properties and selling 4 in Q1 2026. This net gain of 4 properties continues the established pattern of steady growth.

Transaction volume shows a consistent trend of acquisitions outpacing dispositions quarter after quarter. For instance, in Q3 2025, landlords bought 22 properties and sold only 8, a particularly active period for portfolio expansion.

Institutional investors (1,000+ properties) were completely inactive, with no buy or sell transactions recorded in any recent timeframe. This reinforces that all market dynamics are being driven by smaller, local investors.

The data from these historical transactions clearly illustrates a market characterized by accumulation, not liquidation, among its primary investor base.

In Q1 2026, landlords participated in 8 of the 46 total SFR transactions in Union County, capturing a 17.4% share of market activity.

The data reveals a distinct pricing strategy among new investors. Single-property landlords (Tier 01) acquired their 4 properties at the lowest average price point of any group, just $46,500.

In contrast, more established small landlords in the 6-10 property tier paid the highest average price at $127,500, suggesting they are targeting different types of assets than new entrants.

Inter-landlord activity was notable within the 6-10 property tier. Half (50.0%) of the properties purchased by this group were acquired from other landlords, indicating a liquid market for existing rental properties among established operators.

No transactions were recorded for institutional investors, confirming their complete lack of participation in the county's transactional market during the first quarter.