Yates (NY) Investor Pulse Report (2026-Q1)

Investor ownership is a significant force in Yates County, with landlords holding 2,057 single-family residential properties, which constitutes 28.3% of the total 7,272 SFRs in the market.

The market is overwhelmingly controlled by small, individual investors. Individuals own 1,804 properties, making up 87.7% of the investor-owned portfolio, while companies hold the remaining 330 properties (16.0%).

This individual dominance is also reflected in the entity count, where 2,420 of the 2,744 total landlords (88.2%) are individuals, reinforcing the 'mom-and-pop' character of the local rental market.

Cash is the preferred acquisition method for this group. Investors own 1,450 properties outright, more than double the 607 properties that are financed, indicating a well-capitalized investor base that doesn't rely heavily on traditional mortgage transaction data.

The portfolio is almost exclusively dedicated to rentals. A total of 2,048 properties are non-owner-occupied, accounting for 99.6% of all investor-owned homes in the county and signaling a strong, focused rental strategy.

In a stark market shift, investors acquired properties in Q1 2026 for an average price of $275,612, a staggering 54.4% discount compared to the $604,750 paid by traditional homeowners. This represents a savings of $329,138 per property.

This recent discount is a dramatic reversal of the trend seen throughout 2025. In Q2 2025, for example, landlords paid an average of $617,990, a 164.6% premium over the homeowner price of $233,529.

The extreme swing from large premiums to a massive discount highlights the volatility of a market with very low transaction volumes. Individual high or low-value sales can disproportionately affect the quarterly averages, making an automated valuation (AVM) tool crucial for accurate pricing.

The data indicates zero properties were purchased by landlords in several recent timeframes, including all of 2025 and 2024. This makes the recorded average prices for those periods highly theoretical and points to sporadic, rather than consistent, purchasing activity.

The pricing behavior suggests that investors in Yates County are opportunistic, participating in the market only when favorable deals become available rather than consistently competing with homeowners on price.

Investors were the primary buyers in the Yates County market during Q4 2025, acquiring 16 of the 30 total SFRs sold, a commanding market share of 53.3%.

The quarter's activity was driven exclusively by new and small-scale investors. 100% of the 16 properties purchased by landlords went to the 'mom-and-pop' segment (Tiers 01-04).

Digging deeper, all 16 of these purchases were made by investors in the single-property tier, indicating that every investor purchase created a new landlord or added a property to a very small portfolio.

This influx of new participants is significant, with 21 distinct entities making these 16 purchases. This signals a healthy, growing base of small-scale real estate investing in the region.

In stark contrast, institutional investors had zero presence in the market, purchasing 0 properties and reinforcing the county's character as a market dominated by local, small-scale operators.

The investor landscape in Yates County is completely dominated by small-scale operators. 'Mom-and-pop' landlords, defined as those owning 1-10 properties, control a staggering 99.5% of all investor-owned SFRs.

First-time and single-property investors form the bedrock of the market. This tier alone holds 1,891 properties, which accounts for 90.3% of the entire investor-owned housing stock.

The concentration at the small end of the scale is extreme. The next largest tier, two-property landlords, holds just 100 properties (4.8%), a fraction of the single-property group.

Mid-size and large investors are virtually nonexistent. Tiers representing 11 to 1,000 properties collectively own only 10 properties, representing less than 0.5% of the market.

Confirming the absence of large corporate landlords, institutional investors (1,000+ properties) have a 0.0% market share, owning no properties in Yates County. This is a key finding in our property ownership by owner type report.

While individual investors dominate the overall market, a clear crossover point emerges as portfolio sizes grow. Companies take a majority stake starting in the 6-10 property tier, where they own 57.1% of the properties.

Individuals are the primary force in smaller tiers. They own 1,696 of the single-property rentals (86.7%) and 80 of the two-property rentals (78.4%), showcasing their role as the entry point for real estate investment.

The transition toward corporate ownership is gradual but clear. In the 3-5 property tier, individuals still hold a majority at 64.0%, but the company share has grown to 36.0%, up from just 13.3% in the single-property tier.

This pattern suggests that as landlords scale their operations beyond a few properties, they are more likely to incorporate for liability and financial reasons, shifting from personal ownership to a company structure.

Even small-scale landlords utilize corporate structures, with companies owning 261 properties in the single-property tier. Identifying these owners often requires advanced tools like skip tracing to obtain accurate contact information.

Investor ownership in Yates County is not evenly distributed but is heavily concentrated in specific zip codes. The 14527 zip code is the epicenter of activity, containing 1,033 investor-owned properties, nearly half of the county's total.

Beyond the raw count leader, several smaller areas exhibit remarkably high investor penetration rates. The 14857 zip code leads with 50.0% of its SFRs owned by investors, followed closely by 14441 at 46.1% and 14478 at 40.9%.

There is a notable difference between the areas with the highest counts and the highest percentages. The top zip code by count has a 26.5% ownership rate, while the top zip by rate has a smaller number of total properties. This highlights different types of investor focus across the county.

The top five zip codes by property count (14527, 14837, 14478, 14507, 14418) collectively hold 1,782 properties, representing 86.6% of all investor-owned SFRs in the county.

This geographic clustering suggests that investors are targeting specific neighborhoods, possibly driven by local economic factors or attractive property values found through detailed assessor data analysis.

Investors in Yates County are in a strong accumulation phase, consistently buying far more properties than they sell. In 2025, they were decisive net buyers, with 120 acquisitions versus only 7 dispositions.

This trend held steady year-over-year, as 2024 saw a similar pattern of 182 properties purchased and only 9 sold. The buy-to-sell ratio demonstrates a long-term strategy of portfolio growth among local investors.

The net buying activity continued through recent quarters. In Q3 2025, landlords bought 37 properties and sold 4, and in Q2 2025, they acquired 36 while selling just 2.

Institutional investors (1000+ tier) are not a factor in this market's transaction flow. Their only recorded activity in recent years was a single purchase and a single sale in 2024, resulting in a net-neutral position.

The sustained, high-volume net buying from the broader landlord community, coupled with the absence of institutional selling, indicates strong confidence in the local rental market's future, a key takeaway from our latest Investor Pulse reports.

In Q4 2025, landlords were the most active players in the Yates County real estate market, responsible for 21 out of 40 total SFR transactions, a controlling share of 52.5%.

All investor transaction activity was concentrated at the smallest end of the market. 100% of the 21 transactions were conducted by investors in the single-property tier, highlighting a surge of new entrants.

These new investors paid an average purchase price of $275,612 per property during the quarter.

The market showed no signs of inter-landlord trading, with 0% of investor purchases coming from other landlords. This suggests new investors are acquiring properties from homeowners or new construction rather than existing rental portfolios.

Mirroring ownership patterns, institutional investors were completely inactive, recording zero transactions and underscoring the market's reliance on grassroots investment from individuals leveraging modern proptech platforms.