Power (ID) Investor Pulse Report (2026-Q1)

In Power County, real estate investors hold 170 Single-Family Residential (SFR) properties, representing a 10.8% share of the total 1,567 SFRs in the market.

Individual investors are the definitive force, owning 132 properties, which is 77.6% of the investor-owned portfolio. Company-owned properties account for the remaining 48 homes, or 28.2%.

This individual dominance is also reflected in the entity count, with 174 individual landlords compared to just 36 company landlords. This highlights a market structure built on small-scale, local ownership rather than large corporate entities.

Cash transactions are prevalent among investors in this area. Of the 170 properties, 124 were acquired with cash, while only 46 are currently financed, signaling a well-capitalized investor base that can move quickly on opportunities.

The portfolio is clearly geared towards generating rental income, with 162 of the 170 properties identified as rentals. This strong focus underscores the role these investors play in providing housing for the local rental market.

Landlords in Power County demonstrate an exceptional ability to acquire properties well below homeowner market prices. In Q1 2025, investors paid an average of $151,686, a staggering 57.2% less than the $354,355 average paid by traditional homeowners, resulting in a discount of $202,669 per property.

This trend of deep discounts continued into Q3 2025, where investors paid $217,813 compared to the homeowner average of $404,858. This represents a 46.2% discount, or a savings of $187,045, showcasing a consistent pattern of value purchasing.

However, recent purchasing activity by investors has come to a complete standstill. Data shows zero landlord acquisitions in Q2 and Q4 of 2025, as well as throughout all of 2024, indicating a highly selective or dormant period for investor buying.

The historical price data reveals significant market shifts. The average investor acquisition price during the 2020-2023 period was $269,963, substantially higher than the prices seen in the limited 2025 transactions, suggesting investors are now targeting lower-priced assets or that market prices have softened considerably for the types of properties they acquire.

In Q4 2025, landlord acquisition activity in Power County was nonexistent. Of the 12 total SFR properties sold in the market, investors accounted for zero purchases, marking a landlord market share of 0% for the quarter.

This complete pause in buying activity was uniform across all investor sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) made no new acquisitions, accounting for 0% of the quarter's investor activity.

Similarly, institutional investors (1000+ properties) were also absent from the market, recording zero purchases. The lack of activity from any tier indicates a broad market-wide pullback by investors.

The data reveals a stark contrast to previous periods where investors were active. This halt suggests that current market conditions, pricing, or inventory levels in Power County are not meeting investor criteria.

Given the zero-purchase volume, no new landlords entered the market in Q4, and no existing landlords expanded their portfolios through new acquisitions during this period.

The investor landscape in Power County is dominated by small-scale operators. Mom-and-pop landlords, defined as those owning 1-10 properties, control a massive 97.1% of the investor-owned SFR housing stock.

This concentration is most pronounced at the smallest end of the scale. Landlords with just a single property (Tier 01) own 120 homes, which constitutes 69.8% of the entire investor portfolio, making first-time and small investors the bedrock of the market.

Mid-size landlords are a very small fraction of the market, with the 21-50 property tier holding only 4 properties (2.3%).

The presence of large-scale investors is virtually nonexistent. Institutional investors in the 1000+ property tier own just a single property, accounting for a mere 0.6% of the local investor market. This finding directly counters the narrative of large corporations dominating smaller housing markets like Power County.

The ownership structure is extremely fragmented, with the vast majority of rental properties being managed by small, local individuals and families rather than consolidated corporate entities.

In Power County, individual investors maintain majority ownership across every significant landlord tier, underscoring their critical role in the local rental market. There is no evidence of a crossover point where companies become the dominant owner type.

For landlords with a single property, individuals own 104 of the 120 homes, an overwhelming 83.9% share. This highlights that the entry point for real estate investing in this region is almost exclusively driven by private individuals.

The pattern of individual dominance extends as portfolios grow. Among landlords owning two properties, individuals hold a 73.9% share (17 properties). Even in the 3-5 property tier, individuals continue to be the majority owners with 12 properties (57.1%), compared to 9 properties (42.9%) owned by companies.

The data shows that corporate ownership, while present, is a minority factor across the foundational tiers of the investor market. Companies have not achieved a controlling share at any portfolio size where there is a meaningful number of properties.

This market structure suggests that the local rental housing supply is primarily provided by local residents and small-scale investors, rather than larger, out-of-area corporations.

Geographic analysis reveals that investor ownership in Power County is not evenly distributed, with significant concentration in a few key zip codes. The 83211 area is the clear epicenter of activity by volume, containing 127 of the 170 investor-owned properties.

However, looking at ownership rates tells a different story. The 83202 zip code shows a 100.0% investor ownership rate, though this is based on a single property. More significant are the 83212 and 83271 zip codes, which have investor penetration rates of 26.9% and 20.0% respectively, making them hotspots for rental properties relative to their size.

The primary hub, 83211, has a more moderate investor ownership rate of 9.7%, despite its high volume of investor properties. This suggests a larger overall housing market where investor presence is notable but not as saturated as in other parts of the county.

In contrast, areas like 83204 have a lower concentration of both volume (6 properties) and rate (6.8%), indicating less focus from the investor community.

This data, often derived from detailed assessor data, shows that investors are targeting specific sub-markets within the county, likely based on factors like property values, rental demand, and available inventory.

Based on historical transactions, landlords in Power County have been expanding their portfolios. Throughout 2025, they have acted as net buyers, with a total of 10 purchases against only 1 sale, resulting in a net gain of 9 properties.

The buy-to-sell ratio for the year stands at a strong 10-to-1, signaling a clear strategy of accumulation among the local investor community. This indicates confidence in the local rental market's long-term prospects.

A closer look at quarterly activity shows this trend in action, with Q2 2025 recording 2 purchases and only 1 sale. This slow but steady acquisition pace characterizes the local market.

Notably, there were no transactions recorded for institutional investors (1000+ tier). All buying and selling activity is attributable to the small and mid-size landlords who dominate the area, further cementing their role as the primary market movers.

There is currently no data on inter-landlord transactions, meaning it's unclear what percentage of purchases are sourced from other investors versus traditional homeowners.

The first quarter of the year saw a complete absence of investor activity in Power County's real estate market. Of the 17 total SFR transactions that occurred, none involved a landlord as a buyer, resulting in a 0% market share for investors.

This inactivity was consistent across all investor sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04), who form the backbone of the local market, did not acquire any new properties during this period.

Likewise, the single institutional-level owner in the county made no new purchases, holding its portfolio steady. The lack of participation from any investor segment points to broad market factors rather than tier-specific strategies.

Consequently, with no purchases, there is no pricing data to analyze for the quarter. It is impossible to determine which tiers might have paid more or less, as no transactions were completed.

The data also shows zero inter-landlord trading activity. No investors purchased properties from other landlords, suggesting a lack of churn or portfolio repositioning within the investor community during Q1.