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

In Graham County, investors hold a significant 368 single-family residential properties, accounting for 38.9% of the total 946 SFRs in the market. This high penetration rate suggests a market with substantial rental demand.

The ownership structure is overwhelmingly dominated by individual real estate investors, who own 316 properties, or 85.9% of the investor-held SFR stock. Companies own the remaining 52 properties, a much smaller 14.1% share.

A striking financial characteristic of this market is the complete absence of financing among investors. All 368 properties are owned outright with cash, signaling a fiscally conservative or debt-averse investor base.

The portfolio is heavily geared towards rental income, with 359 of the 368 properties classified as rented. This 97.6% rental rate underscores the primary buy-and-hold strategy prevalent among landlords in the area.

The disparity in entity types is pronounced, with 427 individual landlords vastly outnumbering the 32 company landlords. This 13-to-1 ratio of individuals to companies reinforces the 'mom-and-pop' character of the Graham County rental market.

Analysis of acquisition pricing in Graham County is constrained by a complete lack of recent market activity. There were no recorded SFR purchases by either landlords or traditional homeowners in the latest quarter, making a direct price comparison impossible.

This absence of transactions prevents the calculation of any price gap, a common metric where investors often secure properties at a discount compared to homeowners. The market's current illiquidity is the primary finding from the pricing data.

Looking at historical data, the period from 2020-2023 shows an average acquisition price of $48,855. However, this figure is based on a dataset of zero properties, further highlighting the extremely low transaction volume in this market over extended periods.

Without active buying and selling, it is not possible to determine price appreciation trends or compare the purchasing behavior of different investor types. The data points to a stagnant market where assets are rarely traded.

The key takeaway is that Graham County is a buy-and-hold market where investors retain their properties, leading to minimal sales velocity and a lack of current pricing information.

Q4 2025 was a period of complete inactivity in the Graham County SFR market, with zero total purchases recorded. Consequently, landlords acquired zero properties, accounting for 0.0% of all transactions.

The lack of activity was universal across all investor sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords, who represent the vast majority of owners in the county, made no new acquisitions during the quarter.

Similarly, institutional investors (1,000+ properties), which have no existing presence in Graham County, also recorded zero purchases, reflecting a lack of interest or opportunity in this smaller market.

A direct result of the frozen market is the absence of new entrants. The number of single-property landlords (Tier 01) did not increase, as no first-time investment purchases occurred.

This complete halt in purchasing activity underscores the market's extremely low liquidity and suggests that current owners are not selling and potential new buyers are not transacting.

The investor landscape in Graham County is defined by small-scale landlords. Mom-and-pop investors (owning 1-10 properties) overwhelmingly dominate the market, controlling 95.3% of all investor-held SFRs.

The most significant segment is the single-property landlord (Tier 01), which alone accounts for 290 properties, representing 75.5% of the entire investor portfolio. This highlights the market's reliance on first-time or small-scale investors.

Mid-size landlords (11-1000 properties) hold a minor share, with the 11-20 property tier containing 16 properties (4.2%) and the 21-50 tier holding just 2 properties (0.5%).

In stark contrast to national trends, institutional investors (Tier 09) have no footprint in Graham County, with a 0.0% ownership share. This market is exclusively driven by smaller, local operators.

Due to the lack of recent transactions, it is not possible to analyze acquisition prices by tier. The existing ownership structure, however, clearly indicates a stable, long-term holding pattern among small investors.

While individual investors dominate the Graham County market overall, a clear pattern emerges when analyzing ownership by portfolio size. Individuals own the vast majority of smaller portfolios, including 268 of single-property holdings (92.4%) and all 36 properties in the 3-5 tier (100.0%).

The crossover point where companies become the dominant owner type occurs at the 6-10 property tier. Within this small landlord segment, companies own 8 properties, representing a commanding 88.9% share, while individuals own just one.

This early-stage transition to company dominance is notable. It suggests that once an investor's portfolio in this county grows beyond a handful of properties, incorporating becomes a standard operational step for liability or management purposes.

In the two-property tier, individuals still hold a strong majority with 27 properties (87.1%), compared to just 4 properties (12.9%) owned by companies.

Price analysis by owner type within these tiers is not feasible due to the absence of sales data, but the structural ownership patterns reveal distinct strategies for scaling in this market.

Geographic analysis of Graham County reveals significant concentration of investor ownership in specific zip codes. The zip code 67642 is the epicenter of investor holdings by sheer volume, with 219 landlord-owned SFRs.

However, the highest penetration rate is found in 67625, where investors own 76 properties, accounting for an exceptionally high 69.7% of the area's housing stock. This indicates a market heavily skewed towards rental properties.

Another area with high investor presence is 67650, which has 64 investor-owned properties and an ownership rate of 65.3%, further demonstrating pockets of intense investor activity.

The data highlights a key distinction between the largest market and the most saturated market. While 67642 has the most properties (219), its 30.8% ownership rate is less than half that of 67625.

This bifurcated pattern suggests different market dynamics, with some zip codes being larger targets for investment quantity and others representing smaller, more rental-focused communities.

A comprehensive analysis of historical transaction dynamics in Graham County is not possible due to the absence of available data. There are no recorded buy or sell transactions for landlords across the observed timeframes.

This data gap prevents the calculation of a buy/sell ratio, a key indicator of market sentiment that shows whether landlords are, on balance, acquiring or divesting properties.

The percentage of transactions that are inter-landlord trades, a measure of market liquidity and portfolio churning, cannot be determined. The market appears to have very little of this type of activity.

Likewise, no historical data exists for institutional (1,000+ tier) transactions, which aligns with their 0.0% ownership stake in the county. Their absence is a long-standing characteristic of this market.

The primary insight from the lack of transaction data is the confirmation of an extremely illiquid, stable market. Landlords in Graham County appear to follow a long-term buy-and-hold strategy with very infrequent trading.

The Q4 2025 transaction summary for Graham County shows a market at a standstill, with zero total SFR transactions recorded. Landlords were involved in 0.0% of these non-existent sales.

This inactivity was consistent across every investor tier. Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04), who own over 95% of the county's investor properties, did not buy or sell any homes.

Correspondingly, there was no institutional transaction activity, aligning with their zero ownership in the region.

The lack of sales means there was no inter-landlord trading. No properties were sold from one landlord to another, a data point that typically indicates market fluidity and portfolio optimization among investors.

Ultimately, the Q4 transaction data paints a picture of a dormant market, where the established base of buy-and-hold investors are neither expanding their portfolios nor divesting existing assets.