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

In Lawrence County, investors hold a total of 326 Single-Family Residential (SFR) properties, representing 6.6% of the county's 4,919 total SFRs. This indicates a modest but present investor footprint in the local housing market.

The ownership structure is heavily skewed towards individuals over corporate entities. Individual landlords own 271 properties, or 83.1% of the investor-owned portfolio, while companies own the remaining 56 properties (17.2%). This highlights a market dominated by small-scale, local participants rather than large corporations.

A defining characteristic of this market is its complete lack of financing. One hundred percent of the 326 investor-owned properties are held with cash, with zero recorded as financed. This suggests that investors in this area are either independently wealthy, have operated long enough to pay off mortgages, or that financing for investment properties is difficult to secure locally.

The vast majority of the portfolio is actively used for rental income. There are 295 properties classified as rented, accounting for 90.5% of all investor-owned homes. This strong rental focus underscores the primary strategy of investors in Lawrence County.

The entity count further reinforces the dominance of individual investors. There are 384 individual landlords compared to only 24 company landlords, a ratio of 16 to 1. This shows that the market is comprised of a large number of small players, a classic 'mom-and-pop' landscape.

Recent acquisition pricing data for Lawrence County must be interpreted with extreme caution due to a complete absence of transaction volume. While the dataset lists an average landlord acquisition price of $847,000 for 2025-Q1, this figure is not based on any actual property purchases during the period.

The comparison between landlord and homeowner prices highlights this statistical distortion. In 2025-Q1, the data indicates landlords paid a 615.8% premium over traditional homeowners ($847,000 vs. $118,333). However, with zero landlord purchases, this figure is an anomaly and does not reflect real market behavior.

This pattern continues into the following quarter. For 2025-Q2, the data suggests landlords paid $44,333, a significant 69.2% discount compared to the homeowner price of $144,083. Again, this is based on zero properties purchased by investors, making the comparison invalid for trend analysis.

The lack of sales makes it impossible to determine price appreciation or current investor purchasing strategies. The historical data for 2020-2023 shows an average price of $80,629, but with no recent activity, a meaningful trend cannot be established.

Ultimately, the key insight from the pricing data is not the prices themselves, but the market freeze they reveal. The absence of transactions by investors in recent quarters points to a stagnant, illiquid market where price points are theoretical rather than based on active trading.

The most significant finding for the recent quarter in Lawrence County is the complete cessation of investor purchasing activity. Landlords acquired zero SFR properties, representing 0.0% of the total market purchases.

This market freeze is comprehensive, affecting investors of all sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords, who constitute the vast majority of owners in the county, made no new purchases. This indicates that even the smallest, most local investors are currently on the sidelines.

Similarly, institutional investors (Tier 09) were also inactive, recording zero purchases. While their overall presence is minimal in the county, their lack of activity aligns with the broader market standstill.

The data shows no new landlords entering the market, as there were zero properties purchased by entities in the single-property (Tier 01) category. This lack of new entrants suggests a high barrier to entry or a lack of confidence in the current market.

This halt in acquisition activity points to a deeply illiquid investment environment. Potential factors could include a lack of desirable inventory, unfavorable pricing, economic uncertainty, or a stable owner base with little incentive to sell.

The ownership structure in Lawrence County is overwhelmingly dominated by small-scale investors. Mom-and-pop landlords (owning 1-10 properties, Tiers 01-04) control a combined 87.8% of all investor-owned SFRs in the county.

The single-property tier (Tier 01) alone accounts for 265 properties, which is 81.0% of the entire investor portfolio. This demonstrates that the local rental market is primarily supplied by individuals owning just one investment home, not by large-scale operators.

Mid-size landlords (11-1000 properties) hold a minor share of the market. The combined share of Tiers 05 through 08 is just 11.9%, indicating very little consolidation or scaling among local investors.

At the top end of the market, institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) have a virtually nonexistent presence. This tier accounts for a single property, representing only 0.3% of the investor-owned housing stock. This starkly contrasts with narratives of institutional dominance seen in other markets.

The distribution clearly illustrates a highly fragmented market. With the vast majority of rental properties held by landlords with fewer than five properties (87.1%), the market dynamics are driven by the decisions of hundreds of individual small business owners.

Ownership by type varies dramatically across portfolio sizes in Lawrence County. Individual investors are the undisputed leaders in smaller tiers, owning 254 of the 265 single-property investments (95.5%) and 100% of two-property portfolios.

The transition to corporate ownership begins in the small landlord tiers. In the 3-5 property tier, companies already hold a substantial 40.0% share (6 properties), indicating that investors begin to formalize their operations with an LLC or other entity as they scale past a couple of homes.

The definitive crossover point where companies become the majority owners occurs in the 11-20 property tier. In this segment, companies own 66.7% of the properties, signaling that managing a portfolio of this size typically prompts a shift to a more formal business structure.

This trend of company dominance continues in the larger (though still small) tiers. For instance, in the 51-100 property tier, companies own 3 out of 4 properties, a 75.0% share.

This pattern reveals a clear lifecycle for real estate investing in the county. Investors typically start as individuals and incorporate as their portfolios grow, likely for liability protection and operational efficiency.

Investor activity in Lawrence County is geographically concentrated, with specific zip codes attracting the bulk of investment. The zip code 62439 is the leader by sheer volume, containing 153 investor-owned SFRs.

However, the highest concentration rate is found elsewhere. Zip code 62460 has an investor ownership rate of 17.4%, meaning more than one in six SFRs in that area is investor-owned. This is significantly higher than the county-wide average of 6.6%.

This reveals a key distinction between volume and penetration. While 62439 has the most investor properties, its larger total housing stock results in a modest 5.6% investor rate. Conversely, 62460 has fewer than half the number of investor properties but represents a more saturated rental market.

Other areas of notable activity include 62417, with 61 investor properties and a 5.7% rate, and 62466, with 30 properties at a 4.7% rate. These areas are closer to the county average.

The data for zip code 62410 was not available for comparison. This geographic analysis allows investors to identify sub-markets that may be underserved or oversaturated with rental properties.

An analysis of historical transactions reveals a market that has recently become completely illiquid for real estate investors in Lawrence County. There were zero buy-side or sell-side transactions recorded for landlords in the most recent quarter.

This lack of activity prevents any meaningful analysis of market direction. It is not possible to determine if landlords are net buyers or net sellers, as the buy/sell ratio is undefined. Both acquisition and disposition pipelines appear to be frozen.

Similarly, trading between investors, a key sign of a mature market, is nonexistent. The percentage of transactions that are landlord-to-landlord is 0%, as there are no base transactions to measure.

This pattern also holds true for institutional investors. The 1000+ property tier, though small, also recorded zero buys and sells, indicating their behavior is aligned with the complete market standstill.

The absence of transactions is the most critical takeaway. This could signal a stable market where owners are content to hold assets, or a stalled market where bid-ask spreads are too wide, and no deals are being made.

In the most recent quarter, landlords were entirely absent from the transaction market in Lawrence County, accounting for 0.0% of all SFR transactions. A total of zero deals were completed by investor entities.

This inactivity was uniform across all portfolio sizes. The smallest mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) did not purchase any properties, mirroring the behavior of the market's single institutional-scale owner (Tier 09), who also made no acquisitions.

As a result of zero purchases, the average purchase price for every investor tier was $0. This data point underscores the depth of the market freeze and the absence of any capital deployment by investors during this period.

There was no inter-landlord trading activity, with 0% of transactions having a landlord as the seller. The market for investor-to-investor deals was as dormant as the wider acquisition market.

Comparing transaction activity to ownership distribution is impossible, as the former is zero. The market's ownership structure remains static, defined by long-term holdings rather than recent transactional churn. This points to a buy-and-hold environment with extremely low velocity.