Perry (IN) Investor Pulse Report (2026-Q1)

In Perry County, landlords hold 708 single-family residential properties, which constitutes 13.8% of the total 5,142 SFRs in the market. This reveals a significant, yet not dominant, investor presence in the local housing ecosystem.

Ownership is heavily skewed towards individual investors, who own 555 properties, or 78.4% of the investor-owned portfolio. In contrast, company-owned properties number 162, making up the remaining 22.9%, underscoring the local, small-scale nature of real estate investing in the area.

The portfolio is predominantly held free and clear, with 585 properties owned as cash assets compared to only 123 that are financed. This 82.6% cash ownership rate suggests a financially stable and low-leverage investor base that is less susceptible to interest rate fluctuations.

The primary strategy for these landlords is clear: 676 of the 708 properties are rented. This 95.5% rental rate confirms that the vast majority of the investor-owned portfolio is actively used as rental housing rather than for speculation or other purposes.

The market is composed of 715 distinct landlord entities, with 600 being individuals and 115 being companies. This 5.2-to-1 ratio of individual to company landlords further reinforces the 'mom-and-pop' character of the Perry County rental market.

Investors demonstrated a significant pricing advantage in Q1 2026, acquiring properties for an average of $122,347 while traditional homeowners paid $166,871. This represents a substantial 26.7% discount, or $44,524 less per home, highlighting investors' ability to find and secure undervalued properties.

This landlord discount has been a persistent market feature over the past year. In Q3 2025, the gap was an extraordinary 67.0% ($141,991), and it stood at 35.2% in Q2 2025 and 23.6% in Q1 2025, showing a consistent pattern of landlords paying well below the typical homeowner price.

Interestingly, average acquisition prices for landlords have not followed a steady upward trend. The yearly average price paid by investors decreased from $131,548 in 2024 to $124,848 in 2025, contrasting with broader market appreciation trends and suggesting a strategic focus on lower-priced assets.

The price gap between landlords and homeowners, while fluctuating, has remained substantial. The current 26.7% discount is wider than the 23.6% gap seen a year prior in Q1 2025, indicating that the opportunity for investors to purchase at a discount has strengthened over the year.

Investor activity accounted for 16.3% of the market in the last quarter, with landlords purchasing 8 of the 49 total SFRs sold in Perry County. This share shows that investors are a consistent but not overwhelming source of demand in the local market.

The acquisition activity was dominated by small-scale investors. Mom-and-pop landlords, owning between 1 and 10 properties, collectively purchased 6 homes, representing 75.0% of all investor acquisitions for the quarter.

New market entrants made a notable impact, with 3 new single-property landlords each acquiring their first investment property. This group alone constituted 37.5% of all landlord purchases, signaling healthy grassroots growth in the rental sector.

An institutional investor (1,000+ properties) also made a purchase, accounting for 12.5% of the quarter's landlord activity. While only a single property, this type of large-scale investor activity is uncommon for the tier and suggests a targeted acquisition.

The data clearly shows that the new supply of rental housing is primarily being driven by small, local investors, not by large corporations. The combined activity of single-property, two-property, and small landlords (3-5 units) made up the bulk of Q1's investor-led demand.

The investor landscape in Perry County is overwhelmingly dominated by small-scale operators. Mom-and-pop landlords (owning 1-10 properties) control a massive 90.8% of all investor-owned single-family homes, demonstrating that the market is highly fragmented and locally driven.

Single-property landlords form the bedrock of this market. This group alone owns 447 properties, which accounts for 60.8% of the entire investor portfolio and highlights the importance of new and small investors to the local rental supply.

The narrative of large-scale corporate ownership does not apply here. Institutional investors from the 1,000+ property tier hold just 3 properties in the county, making up only 0.4% of the investor market. This minimal presence underscores their limited impact on local housing dynamics.

Mid-size landlords (11-100 properties) represent a small but distinct segment, collectively owning 54 properties or 7.3% of the investor portfolio. Their presence is dwarfed by the combined might of smaller investors.

The distribution of ownership proves that the overwhelming majority of rental housing providers in Perry County are small, local individuals and businesses, with nearly every tier below 100 properties contributing to the 90.8% mom-and-pop share.

Individual investors are the primary owners in smaller portfolio tiers across Perry County. They own 84.9% of all single-property investments (387 homes) and continue to hold a strong majority of 74.0% in the 3-5 property tier (94 homes).

The transition point where corporate ownership begins to match individual ownership is in the 11-20 property tier. At this level, the portfolio is split exactly 50/50, with individuals and companies each owning 14 properties.

Company ownership becomes the clear majority only at the higher end of the market. In the 101-1000 property tier, companies own 9 properties, representing an 81.8% controlling share, which is a stark reversal of the pattern seen in smaller tiers.

An interesting anomaly exists in the 21-50 property tier, where individuals regain overwhelming control, owning 22 of the 23 properties (95.7%). This suggests that growth into this mid-size category is more common for successful individual investors than for smaller corporate entities in this specific market.

Overall, the data illustrates a clear lifecycle: individuals initiate and dominate the small-portfolio rental market, with corporate structures becoming more prevalent as portfolios scale significantly, particularly beyond 100 properties.

Investor ownership in Perry County is geographically concentrated, with the 47520 zip code being the primary hub. This area contains 176 investor-owned properties, representing a significant 19.1% of its local SFR housing stock.

The areas with the highest rates of investor penetration are smaller, more niche markets. The 47118 zip code leads the county with a 25.0% investor ownership rate, followed closely by 47588 at 23.6%, indicating these are particularly attractive for rental property investment.

Beyond the top zip code, other areas with notable investor presence include 47525, with 18 investor-owned homes (15.0% rate), and 47515, with 16 properties (12.4% rate). These figures show a clear preference for specific communities within the county.

The provided assessor data shows a disparity between raw counts and ownership rates. While 47520 has the most properties by far, its 19.1% rate is surpassed by other, smaller zip codes, suggesting different investment strategies are at play across the county.

The data for some zip codes, like 47137 and 47532, was incomplete. However, the available information clearly points to 47520 as the volume leader and 47118 as the rate leader for investor activity in Perry County.

The overall investor market in Perry County remains in an accumulation phase, with landlords consistently acting as net buyers. In Q1 2026, they purchased 8 properties while selling only 5, a ratio of 1.6 buys for every sale, indicating continued confidence in the local rental market.

This pattern of net acquisition has been consistent over the long term. For the full year of 2025, landlords bought 70 homes and sold 31 (a 2.26 ratio), and in 2024 they bought 51 and sold 23 (a 2.22 ratio), showing a stable, multi-year trend of portfolio growth.

However, institutional investors (1,000+ property tier) are showing a different pattern. In Q1 2026, they were perfectly neutral, with 1 purchase and 1 sale. This follows a period in Q2 2025 where they were net sellers, with 1 purchase against 2 sales.

The divergence between the broader landlord market and the institutional segment is significant. While smaller, local investors are actively expanding their holdings, the largest players are either holding steady or selectively divesting, a potential leading indicator of a market shift.

Despite their recent neutrality, institutional investors were slight net buyers over the full years of 2025 (6 buys, 5 sells) and 2024 (3 buys, 2 sells), but their recent activity signals a clear deceleration compared to the aggressive buying of smaller landlords.

In the first quarter, landlords participated in 8 of the 61 total SFR transactions in Perry County, capturing a 13.1% share of all market activity. This shows a steady, but not dominant, level of investor involvement in recent sales.

A dramatic price disparity exists between investor tiers. The institutional investor (1,000+ tier) paid just $64,331 for its acquisition, while new single-property landlords paid an average of $136,345. This reflects a 52.8% discount for the institutional buyer, highlighting a vastly different acquisition strategy focused on lower-cost assets.

Small, mom-and-pop investors (Tiers 01-04) drove transaction volume, accounting for 6 of the 8 total investor purchases. This reinforces that market activity, much like ownership, is concentrated among smaller-scale players.

Notably, none of the 8 investor acquisitions in Q1 were from other landlords. This 0% inter-landlord transaction rate indicates that investors are sourcing their properties from the wider market, likely from traditional homeowners, rather than trading assets among themselves.

The pricing spread reveals distinct strategies: new entrants (Tier 01) are willing to pay higher prices to enter the market, while experienced, large-scale investors are able to secure properties at a significant discount, likely by targeting off-market or distressed opportunities.