Union (MS) Investor Pulse Report (2026-Q1)

In Union County, MS, investors hold a portfolio of 122 Single-Family Residential (SFR) properties, making up 11.5% of the total 1,065 SFRs in the market. This indicates a modest but notable presence of rental properties within the local housing stock.

Individual investors are the definitive force in the market, owning 100 properties, or 82.0% of the investor-owned portfolio. In contrast, company-owned entities hold just 22 properties (18.0%), underscoring a market structure built on local, small-scale ownership rather than corporate presence.

The ownership base is composed of 153 distinct landlords, with 132 being individuals and 21 classified as companies. This ratio of 6.3 individual landlords for every one company landlord further highlights the granular nature of real estate investing in the area.

A strong preference for cash ownership is evident, with 99 properties (81.1%) held free and clear, compared to only 23 (18.9%) that are financed. This suggests that investors in Union County operate with low leverage and high equity.

The portfolio is almost entirely dedicated to rentals, as 121 of the 122 properties are non-owner-occupied. This 99.2% rental concentration confirms that the assets are actively managed as investment properties rather than secondary homes.

Analysis of acquisition pricing for Q4 2025 is not possible, as no landlord purchases were recorded in Union County during this period. This absence of activity prevents any comparison between investor and traditional homeowner pricing.

The lack of recent transaction data signifies a market at a standstill for investors. Without new purchases, it's impossible to calculate key metrics like the typical landlord discount or track price appreciation trends.

Looking at a broader timeframe, the data for 2020-2023 also shows zero properties acquired by landlords. This extended period of inactivity suggests that the recent halt in Q4 is part of a longer-term pattern of minimal investor acquisition in the county.

The data does not allow for a breakdown of pricing between individual and company investors, as neither group registered a purchase in the analyzed timeframes. This highlights the static nature of the current rental property landscape in the region.

Investor acquisition activity in Union County came to a complete halt in Q4 2025, with landlords purchasing zero of the zero total SFRs sold. This 0.0% market share indicates a period of profound inactivity for investors.

The purchasing freeze was universal across all investor sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) and institutional investors (1000+ properties) both recorded zero acquisitions, reflecting a market-wide pause.

No new investors entered the market during Q4 2025. The single-property (Tier 01) category, which typically represents new or first-time landlords, registered zero new entities and zero property purchases.

This lack of activity across all nine purchase tiers suggests that market conditions, such as inventory, pricing, or interest rates, were not conducive to investor acquisitions in Union County during this period.

The complete absence of landlord buying activity means that 100% of any market transactions that may have occurred were attributed to other buyer types, such as traditional homeowners.

The investor landscape in Union County is overwhelmingly dominated by small-scale operators. Mom-and-pop landlords, owning between 1 and 10 properties, control 98.4% of all investor-held SFRs.

The market is exceptionally granular, with single-property landlords (Tier 01) alone accounting for 109 properties, or 88.6% of the total investor portfolio. This signifies a market built on first-time or small-scale investors.

Mid-size and institutional investors are virtually non-existent. Landlords with 11-1000 properties represent a tiny fraction of ownership, and large-scale institutional investors (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) have a 0.0% share, holding zero properties in the county.

The ownership structure is heavily skewed towards the smallest tiers. After the single-property tier, ownership drops sharply to just 5 properties each for the two-property and 3-5 property tiers, both representing 4.1% of the market.

Given the lack of recent purchasing data across all tiers, it is not possible to analyze pricing behavior or compare acquisition costs between small and large landlords.

While individual investors dominate the overall market, ownership patterns shift within specific tiers. In the largest single-property tier, individuals hold 98 of the 109 properties, a commanding 89.9% share.

A notable crossover occurs in multi-property portfolios. Companies become the majority owners in the two-property tier, holding 3 of 5 properties (60.0%), and extend this lead in the 3-5 property tier, owning 4 of 5 properties (80.0%).

This pattern suggests that while most individuals start and stay with one rental, entities structured as companies are more likely to scale, even if only to a few properties. The transition to company majority happens at the two-property threshold.

Despite company dominance in these small multi-family tiers, the absolute numbers remain low. The combined company portfolio across these two tiers is just 7 properties, reinforcing the small-scale nature of the entire Union County investor market.

Pricing analysis between individuals and companies is unavailable due to the lack of recent transaction data for either group, preventing insights into differing acquisition strategies.

Geographic concentration is a key feature of Union County's investor market. A single zip code, 38652, contains 104 of the 122 investor-owned properties, representing an overwhelming 85.2% of the entire portfolio.

While 38652 leads dramatically in volume, it is not the area with the highest market penetration. That distinction belongs to zip code 38824, where investors own 20.0% of the SFRs, indicating a higher density of rental properties relative to the total housing supply.

The second-most active area by property count is 38828, with just 8 investor-owned properties. This steep drop-off from the top zip code highlights the hyper-localized nature of investment in the county.

Analysis of public assessor data shows that investor ownership rates vary significantly across the county. For instance, the rate in 38652 is 11.4% and in 38849 it is 11.1%, contrasting with the higher rate in 38824.

The data reveals a clear distinction between the region with the most properties (38652) and the region with the highest saturation of investors (38824), offering different strategic implications for market analysis.

A historical analysis of landlord transactions in Union County cannot be conducted due to the absence of available data. This prevents the determination of long-term buying and selling trends.

It is not possible to identify whether the landlord community as a whole, or institutional investors specifically, have been net buyers or net sellers over time. Key metrics like the buy-to-sell ratio are unavailable.

The data does not permit an analysis of inter-landlord trading activity. The percentage of properties bought from or sold to other landlords, a key indicator of market maturity and liquidity, remains unknown.

Similarly, a comparison of average buy prices versus average sell prices over time is not feasible. This prevents any data-driven insight into potential profit margins or holding period returns for investors in the area.

The lack of historical data reflects a market with either very low transaction volume or one where such transactions are not readily captured in public records, pointing to an opaque and illiquid investment environment.

In Q4 2025, landlords participated in zero market transactions in Union County. This 0.0% share of the zero total transactions underscores a period of complete stasis in the local investment market.

The inactivity was consistent across all investor sizes. Transaction volume was zero for every one of the nine purchase tiers, indicating that no landlords, from single-property owners to large portfolio holders, were buying or selling.

As a result of zero purchases, there is no data on average acquisition prices for any tier. It is impossible to compare the purchasing costs between different classes of investors for this period.

Inter-landlord activity was also non-existent. The data shows that 0.0% of purchases were sourced from other landlords, a direct consequence of the total lack of buying activity.

The absence of transactions in Q4 suggests that investors were on the sidelines, likely waiting for more favorable market conditions or opportunities to emerge in Union County.