Brown (IL) Investor Pulse Report (2026-Q1)

In Brown County, IL, landlords hold a total of 226 Single-Family Residential (SFR) properties, which constitutes 14.9% of the total 1,516 SFRs in the market. This highlights a significant, yet not dominant, investor presence in the local housing landscape.

The ownership structure is overwhelmingly tilted towards private individuals. Individual real estate investors own 216 properties, accounting for 95.6% of the investor-owned portfolio, while companies own a mere 10 properties (4.4%).

A look at the entity counts reinforces this pattern, with 176 individual landlords compared to just 9 company landlords. This 19-to-1 ratio underscores that the market is driven by small-scale, personal investment rather than corporate operations.

Financing behavior reveals a strong preference for cash transactions. Of the 226 investor-owned properties, 201 were acquired with cash, while only 25 are currently financed. This suggests that investors in this area have high liquidity and low reliance on leverage.

The portfolio is clearly focused on generating rental income. There are 212 properties classified as rented, which means 93.8% of the investor-owned stock is actively serving as rental housing for the community.

Investor acquisition pricing in Brown County shows extreme volatility, a characteristic of a market with very low transaction volume. In 2025-Q1, landlords paid an average of $65,300, a significant 40.8% discount compared to the traditional homeowner price of $110,286.

However, this trend completely reversed in subsequent quarters. In 2025-Q2, the average landlord price was $225,000, a 45.0% premium over the homeowner price of $155,125. This swing intensified in 2025-Q3, with a landlord price of $376,500 representing a 107.5% premium over the homeowner price of $181,406.

These dramatic fluctuations are not indicative of a consistent market strategy but rather the impact of outliers in an illiquid market. With zero properties purchased by landlords in recent periods, these averages are based on minimal historical data and should be interpreted with caution.

Comparing recent activity to the pandemic era (2020-2023), where the average price was $83,275, highlights a general upward price trend. However, the lack of recent purchasing activity prevents a clear analysis of current appreciation.

The absence of any recorded landlord purchases since 2025-Q1 suggests a market pause. Investors may be waiting for more favorable conditions or a clearer price direction before re-engaging in acquisitions in Brown County.

In the final quarter of 2025, investor activity in Brown County's SFR market was nonexistent. Of the 8 total SFR properties that were sold, landlords purchased zero, resulting in a 0% market share for the quarter.

This lack of activity was consistent across all investor sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords, who constitute the vast majority of owners in the county, made no acquisitions, accounting for 0.0% of the (zero) landlord purchases.

Similarly, institutional investors in Tier 09 also recorded zero purchases. This complete absence of buying from both the smallest and largest investor tiers signals a broad-based pause in the investment market.

The data shows no new landlords entering the market, as there were no purchases by entities that would fall into the single-property tier. This indicates a lack of new capital flowing into the local rental market from first-time investors.

The complete cessation of purchasing activity is the most significant finding for the quarter, suggesting that current market conditions, whether pricing, inventory, or economic outlook, are not conducive to investor acquisitions in Brown County.

The ownership structure in Brown County is definitively characterized by small-scale investors. Mom-and-pop landlords, defined as those owning 1-10 properties (Tiers 01-04), collectively own 89.3% of all investor-held SFRs.

The single-property tier (Tier 01) is the largest single group, with 120 properties representing 51.3% of the investor portfolio. This demonstrates that the local rental market is primarily supplied by individuals with a single investment property.

Following this are small landlords with 3-5 properties, who control 55 homes (23.5% share), and two-property owners with 23 homes (9.8%). The concentration of ownership in these lower tiers highlights the granular, community-based nature of real estate investment in the area.

Mid-size landlords are a minor segment. The 11-20 property tier contains just one property (0.4%), while the 21-50 tier holds 24 properties (10.3%), representing a small pocket of more concentrated ownership.

Significantly, there is absolutely no institutional investor presence in Brown County. The 1,000+ property tier (Tier 09) holds zero properties, a 0.0% share, confirming the market is exclusively composed of smaller, non-institutional players.

In Brown County, individual investors are not just the majority; they represent nearly the entirety of the ownership base across all portfolio sizes. Companies have a negligible presence, failing to establish a majority in any tier.

The data shows that even in the smallest tiers, individuals are dominant. In the single-property tier, individuals own 112 properties (93.3%) compared to 8 for companies (6.7%). A similar split is seen in the two-property tier, with individuals at 91.3%.

Beyond two properties, company ownership disappears entirely. For all tiers from 3-5 properties up to 21-50 properties, 100% of the homes are owned by individuals. This indicates that as portfolios grow in this market, they remain under personal ownership rather than transitioning to a corporate structure.

The traditional crossover point seen in larger markets, where companies become the majority owners in higher tiers, does not exist in Brown County. The market structure is exclusively built on individual ownership from start to finish.

This complete control by individual investors suggests that the local real estate investment scene is driven by personal capital and management, without the influence of corporate strategies or large-scale operational efficiencies.

Geographic analysis reveals a stark concentration of investor-owned properties within Brown County. A single zip code, 62353, is home to 163 of the 226 investor properties, accounting for 72.1% of the entire portfolio. This area has an investor ownership rate of 14.6%.

The next most significant areas by count are 62378 with 41 properties (14.4% rate) and 62375 with 19 properties (18.8% rate). Together, these top three zip codes contain 98.2% of all investor-owned homes in the county.

Examining ownership by rate instead of count highlights a different pattern. The zip code 62323 has the highest concentration at 33.3%, but this is based on just one investor-owned property out of three total SFRs. Similarly, 62324 has a 20.0% rate from two investor properties.

This illustrates the common distinction between volume and penetration. While 62353 is the clear hub for the absolute number of rental properties, smaller, more rural zip codes technically have a higher proportion of their limited housing stock owned by investors.

This hyper-local concentration suggests that investor knowledge and opportunity are likely confined to specific neighborhoods or towns within the county, rather than being evenly distributed.

Historical transaction data for Brown County reveals a market with very limited liquidity. In 2024, landlords collectively acted as net buyers, though on a very small scale. They purchased a total of 6 properties while selling 4, resulting in a net addition of 2 properties to the overall investor portfolio.

This low volume of activity suggests that properties are typically held for the long term, with infrequent trading between owners. The buy-to-sell ratio of 1.5 indicates a slight bias towards acquisition, but the small absolute numbers are more telling of market inactivity.

There is no evidence of inter-landlord trading in the provided data, meaning transactions were likely between investors and traditional homeowners.

Consistent with all other findings for the county, institutional investors (1,000+ property tier) were completely absent from the transaction market. All recorded buying and selling activity in 2024 was conducted by smaller, non-institutional landlords.

The minimal transaction history provides a crucial context for the current halt in activity, showing that while the market was never highly active, the recent freeze represents a significant downturn even from its historically low baseline.

In the first quarter of 2026, the investor segment of the Brown County real estate market was entirely dormant. Of the 8 total SFR transactions that occurred, none involved a landlord as a buyer, resulting in a 0% market share for investors.

This inactivity was universal across all investor sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords, who form the backbone of the county's investor base, recorded zero transactions during the quarter.

Likewise, institutional investors had no transaction activity, which is consistent with their 0% ownership stake in the county. The lack of acquisitions from any tier underscores a broad market sentiment against purchasing at this time.

Consequently, the average purchase price for all investor tiers was effectively $0, as no capital was deployed. The price spread between the highest and lowest paying tiers was nonexistent.

Furthermore, the data shows no inter-landlord trading activity. No investors purchased properties from other landlords, indicating a lack of portfolio repositioning or churning within the existing investor community.