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

In Coffey County, investors hold a significant 27.6% of the single-family residential market, totaling 721 properties out of 2,615. This demonstrates a substantial investor presence relative to the market's overall size.

The ownership structure is heavily skewed towards individuals over corporations. Individual real estate investors own 577 properties, making up 80.0% of the investor portfolio, while companies own the remaining 147 properties (20.0%).

A defining characteristic of this market is its complete reliance on cash. All 721 investor-owned properties are held free and clear, with no financed holdings recorded. This signals a mature, low-leverage investment environment where owners are not dependent on lending.

The vast majority of the portfolio is actively used for rental income, with 702 properties classified as rented. This near-total rental penetration underscores that the investment strategy in this county is focused on long-term cash flow rather than speculation or short-term holds.

The landlord base itself reflects the ownership pattern, with 771 individual landlords compared to just 94 company landlords. This 8-to-1 ratio of individual to company entities reinforces the mom-and-pop character of the local rental market.

Analysis of acquisition pricing in Coffey County is impossible due to a complete lack of recent transaction data. There were no recorded SFR purchases by landlords in the timeframe spanning from 2020 to Q1 2026.

The absence of sales prevents any comparison between what investors and traditional homeowners might pay. This lack of activity suggests a highly static market where properties are seldom traded.

Historical data shows an average acquisition price of $99,302 during the 2020-2023 period, but this is based on zero properties purchased, rendering the figure purely statistical and not reflective of actual market activity.

Without recent transactions, it is impossible to determine price appreciation or depreciation trends. The market appears to be in a state of stasis, dominated by long-term holds rather than active trading.

This lack of velocity is the most critical pricing insight for Coffey County. Investors and homeowners are holding their properties, leading to a market with minimal inventory turnover and no new price points being set.

In Q4 2025, landlord purchasing activity in Coffey County was non-existent. Investors acquired zero properties, accounting for 0.0% of a market that saw no SFR purchases at all.

The lack of activity was universal across all investor tiers. Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) and institutional investors (1000+ properties) both recorded zero acquisitions for the quarter.

This complete standstill means no new investors entered the market. The number of single-property landlords, a key indicator of new market entrants, remained unchanged.

The data highlights a market characterized by holding, not trading. Existing landlords are maintaining their portfolios without expansion, and new capital is not flowing into the county's SFR rental sector.

This absence of purchasing is a significant departure from more active markets and defines Coffey County as a stable, buy-and-hold environment where acquisition opportunities are either unavailable or not being pursued.

The investor landscape in Coffey County is unequivocally dominated by small-scale landlords. Tiers 01-04, representing owners with 1-10 properties, collectively control 94.4% of the entire investor-owned SFR portfolio.

The concentration at the smallest level is profound. Single-property landlords (Tier 01) are the backbone of the market, owning 517 properties, which constitutes 70.8% of all investor holdings.

Following single-property owners, the next largest group holds 3-5 properties, accounting for 88 properties or 12.1% of the total. This further reinforces the market's reliance on small, local investors.

There is no institutional investor presence in Coffey County. The 1000+ property tier (Tier 09) holds zero properties, indicating the market is entirely outside the scope of large-scale corporate investment strategies.

Mid-size landlords are also scarce. The combined share of owners with 11-50 properties is just 5.7%, showing a sharp drop-off in ownership after the 10-property mark.

Individual investors are the dominant force across the most common portfolio sizes in Coffey County. They own 457 of the 517 single-property investor homes (87.9%) and 45 of the 60 two-property portfolios (75.0%).

The transition to company-majority ownership occurs at the 11-20 property tier. In this small-medium category, companies own 19 properties (55.9%) compared to 15 properties owned by individuals (44.1%).

Even as portfolio sizes grow, individuals maintain a notable presence. In the 6-10 property tier, individuals still own a majority stake with 13 properties (54.2%), demonstrating their continued participation in larger local portfolios.

This crossover point at a relatively small portfolio size (11 properties) suggests that local investors who decide to scale beyond 10 properties often do so by forming a legal entity for liability and management purposes.

Due to the lack of recent purchasing activity, it's impossible to compare acquisition prices between individual and company buyers within any tier, but the ownership structure clearly shows a market built on individual capital that transitions to corporate structures for scale.

Investor activity in Coffey County is not evenly distributed, showing hyper-local concentration. The zip code 66852 leads with the highest investor penetration rate at 39.2%, closely followed by 66856 at 39.1%. These high rates indicate certain neighborhoods are predominantly rental areas.

While some zip codes have high ownership rates, the largest volume of investor properties is elsewhere. The 66839 zip code is home to 295 investor-owned SFRs, the most in the county, yet its ownership rate of 21.5% is lower than other top areas.

Other areas with significant investor penetration include 66758 (33.3%) and 66857 (30.7%), further demonstrating that investor focus is on specific communities within the county.

The distinction between the top areas by count (66839) and by percentage (66852, 66856) is a key finding. It suggests different market dynamics: one area may be larger with more overall rental stock, while others are smaller but have a much higher proportion of rentals.

The data for zip code 66095 is incomplete, but the available information points to a market where investment strategy must be tailored to the specific characteristics of each zip code, as investor presence varies dramatically across the county.

Historical transaction data for Coffey County landlords is entirely absent, which is a powerful insight in itself. This lack of recorded buys and sells points to a market dominated by a long-term, buy-and-hold strategy.

It is not possible to determine if landlords are net buyers or sellers. The data void suggests that investors in this area are not actively trading properties, but rather holding them for rental income over extended periods.

Similarly, the volume of inter-landlord transactions is zero. This signifies a lack of portfolio trading between investors and a market where liquidity for rental properties is extremely low.

Without sales data, a comparison of average buy and sell prices cannot be conducted. This prevents any analysis of potential profit margins or market-timing strategies, as landlords are simply not selling.

The complete lack of transaction history, especially for institutional investors (who have no presence), paints a picture of a stable, insulated rental market that operates outside the trends of active investment cycles seen in other regions.

The transaction market in Coffey County was completely dormant in Q4 2025, with zero SFR transactions recorded for any buyer type. Consequently, the landlord share of transactions was 0.0%.

This inactivity was consistent across all investor portfolio sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) and institutional investors alike recorded zero transactions during the quarter.

Given the lack of purchases, there was no inter-landlord trading. The percentage of properties bought from other landlords was 0%, highlighting the extremely low liquidity in the local investment property market.

It is impossible to analyze purchase prices by tier, as no properties were bought or sold. There is no data to indicate whether smaller or larger investors might pay more or less in this market.

The total absence of Q4 transactions confirms the broader trend seen in historical data: Coffey County is a market where real estate investors hold assets for the long term, with minimal to no trading activity.