Anderson (KS) Investor Pulse Report (2026-Q1)

In Anderson County, KS, investors hold a significant 684 single-family residential properties, which constitutes 31.5% of the total 2,174 SFRs in the market. This high penetration rate indicates a market with substantial rental housing stock supplied by private investors.

The ownership structure is overwhelmingly dominated by individual investors rather than corporations. Individuals own 597 properties, or 87.3% of the investor-owned portfolio, compared to just 87 properties (12.7%) owned by companies. This highlights a market driven by local, smaller-scale real estate investing.

A defining characteristic of this market is its complete lack of leverage. All 684 investor-owned properties are held in cash, with zero properties recorded as financed. This suggests investors in this area are well-capitalized and not reliant on traditional mortgage financing.

The vast majority of the portfolio is actively used for rental income. Of the 684 properties, 669 are classified as rented, reinforcing the non-owner-occupied strategy of these landlords.

The disparity between entity types is also clear in the landlord count. There are 726 individual landlords compared to just 49 company landlords, a ratio of nearly 15 to 1. This confirms that the market is composed of many small players, not a few large ones.

Analysis of acquisition pricing in Anderson County is constrained by a complete absence of recent sales activity. There were no recorded SFR purchases by landlords or traditional homeowners in Q4 2025, making a direct price comparison impossible for the current period.

The lack of transactions signals a highly illiquid or stagnant market. This could be due to a variety of factors, including a stable, long-term rental population, a lack of available inventory for sale, or pricing that does not incentivize turnover.

The sole historical benchmark available is from the 2020-2023 period, during which the average acquisition price for the few properties purchased by investors was $95,414. Without recent data, it is not possible to assess price appreciation or current market valuations accurately.

This data gap is a significant finding in itself. For investors looking to enter or exit this market, the lack of comparable sales makes pricing strategy exceptionally challenging and likely reliant on private valuations or off-market negotiations.

Q4 2025 was a period of complete inactivity for the Anderson County SFR market, with zero properties purchased by any buyer type. This means landlords acquired 0 new properties, accounting for 0.0% of all sales.

The lack of activity extends across all investor tiers. Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties), who dominate ownership, made no new purchases. Similarly, there was no activity from mid-size or institutional investors.

This absence of new acquisitions means there were no new landlords entering the market in Q4 2025. The market's investor composition remained static, without the inflow of first-time investors (Tier 01) often seen in more active markets.

The data points to a buy-and-hold environment where existing landlords are not expanding their portfolios through on-market purchases, and new investors are not entering. This could suggest a mature market where owners are content with existing rental income streams.

For anyone analyzing market momentum, the key takeaway is that Anderson County is not a transactional market at present. Investment strategies would need to focus on long-term holds or sourcing off-market opportunities rather than traditional acquisition funnels.

The investor landscape in Anderson County is unequivocally controlled by small-scale operators. Landlords owning 1-10 properties, commonly known as mom-and-pop landlords, hold a combined 90.7% of all investor-owned SFRs.

Single-property landlords (Tier 01) form the bedrock of this market. This group alone owns 468 properties, representing 66.3% of the entire investor portfolio, indicating that the typical investor is a local individual with one rental home.

The concentration at the small end of the scale is profound. The first four tiers combined (1-10 properties) account for 640 of the 684 investor-owned homes, leaving very few for larger portfolios.

Mid-size landlords (11-50 properties) represent a small fraction of the market, collectively owning just 66 properties, or 9.4% of the total.

Notably, there is zero institutional ownership in Anderson County. The 1,000+ property tier (Tier 09) is empty, which starkly contrasts with narratives of corporate landlords dominating housing markets. Here, the market is entirely local and small-scale.

In a significant departure from typical market structures, individual investors in Anderson County maintain majority ownership across all existing portfolio tiers. Companies have not established a foothold in any segment, including larger portfolios.

For single-property landlords, individuals represent 93.2% of holdings (436 properties). This dominance continues up the scale, with individuals owning 94.7% of two-property portfolios and 84.0% of 3-5 property portfolios.

The data shows no crossover point where corporate ownership becomes the norm. In the 6-10 property tier, where companies often gain traction, individuals still hold a 52.9% majority. For the largest tier present, 21-50 properties, individuals own 22 homes (62.9%) compared to 13 for companies (37.1%).

This pattern indicates that even as landlords scale up in Anderson County, they tend to do so as individuals rather than through corporate entities like LLCs. This could reflect local market norms, financing conditions, or the specific type of investor attracted to the area.

The finding reinforces the deeply localized and non-corporate nature of the county's rental market. Investment activity and growth are driven by personal capital, not institutional or large-scale corporate strategies.

Investor ownership in Anderson County is not evenly distributed but is instead highly concentrated in specific zip codes. A property search reveals that the 66032 zip code is the epicenter of activity by volume, containing 397 of the 684 total investor-owned SFRs.

However, analysis of ownership rates reveals a different story. The zip code 66091 has the highest investor penetration, where landlords own 51.7% of the SFR housing stock. This indicates that over half the homes in this area are rentals.

Several other zip codes also display remarkably high investor ownership rates. In 66039, investors own 46.2% of SFRs, while in 66033 the rate is 45.1%. These figures point to hyper-localized pockets where rental properties are the dominant form of housing.

The areas with the highest count of investor properties are not always the same as those with the highest percentage. For instance, 66032 has the largest number of units but a more moderate ownership rate of 26.9% compared to the smaller zip codes.

This geographic analysis is crucial for understanding market dynamics. It highlights specific neighborhoods or towns where rental demand is highest and where the character of the community is significantly shaped by landlord ownership. These are key data points for any new investor considering the area.

A critical finding for Anderson County is the complete lack of historical transaction data. There are no records of buy and sell transactions for the overall landlord population or for any specific tier, including institutional investors.

This absence of data prevents any analysis of market liquidity or velocity. It is impossible to calculate a buy/sell ratio, determine if landlords are net buyers or sellers, or track how these trends have changed over time.

Furthermore, the level of inter-landlord trading cannot be assessed. Data on the percentage of purchases from other landlords is a key indicator of a mature, liquid investment market, and its absence here is telling.

The lack of transaction history strongly suggests a 'buy and hold' philosophy dominates the local market. Landlords who acquire properties tend to keep them for the long term, likely focusing on rental income rather than appreciation and resale.

For prospective investors, this signifies a market with high barriers to entry via traditional means. Opportunities are unlikely to appear on the open market, and growth would likely require off-market strategies to find owners willing to sell.

In Q4 2025, the transaction market in Anderson County was entirely static. Landlords were involved in zero transactions, resulting in a 0.0% share of market activity, which itself was non-existent.

This inactivity was consistent across all investor sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) recorded zero transactions, as did all other tiers. There was no buying or selling to analyze.

Consequently, key metrics like average purchase price by tier cannot be calculated. It's impossible to compare the purchasing strategies of smaller versus larger landlords in the current climate.

Analysis of inter-landlord trading is also not possible due to the lack of deals. There were no instances of landlords buying from other landlords, a metric that typically sheds light on the internal dynamics of an investor market.

The key takeaway from Q4 2025 is the profound lack of liquidity. The data paints a picture of a closed-loop system where properties are not changing hands, reinforcing the buy-and-hold nature of the local investor base.