Grand (UT) Investor Pulse Report (2026-Q1)

In Grand County, real estate investors hold a substantial footprint, owning 1,845 single-family residential properties. This represents a significant 44.4% of the county's total 4,151 SFRs, indicating a market with deep investor penetration.

The ownership structure is heavily skewed towards individuals over corporations. Individual investors own 1,530 properties, accounting for 82.9% of the investor-owned portfolio, while companies own the remaining 357 properties (19.3%).

A look at financing reveals a strong preference for cash transactions. A total of 1,535 properties are owned outright without financing, compared to just 310 that carry a mortgage. This nearly 5-to-1 ratio of cash-to-financed properties suggests investors in this market are well-capitalized.

The vast majority of these holdings are used as rental properties. Of the 1,845 investor-owned homes, 1,816 are classified as non-owner-occupied, confirming the portfolio's primary function is for generating rental income rather than personal use.

The number of unique landlords (2,016) slightly exceeds the number of investor-owned properties (1,845), a clear signal that the market is composed almost entirely of small-scale investors, many of whom own only a single property.

Analysis of acquisition pricing between landlords and traditional homeowners in Grand County could not be performed, as transactional price data was not available for the reporting period.

There is no data to establish a price gap or discount that investors may have received compared to other buyers. This prevents an assessment of investor purchasing strategies or advantages in the local market.

Similarly, a comparison of acquisition prices between individual and company landlords is not possible. It is unclear if either investor type pays a premium or secures a greater discount within this specific geography.

Historical pricing trends, including appreciation from the 2020-2023 period to the most recent quarter, cannot be calculated. The lack of pricing information limits insights into market performance and value changes over time.

Without acquisition price data, a complete picture of investor behavior and market dynamics remains partial. Further assessor data would be required to understand pricing patterns in Grand County.

Investor purchasing activity in Grand County came to a complete halt in Q4 2025, with landlords acquiring zero SFR properties. This accounted for 0.0% of the total market purchases, as there were no transactions recorded for any buyer type.

The lack of activity was consistent across all investor sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) made up 0.0% of investor purchases, a figure matched by institutional investors (1000+ properties), who also acquired nothing.

This market freeze meant no new investors entered the rental market. The count of new single-property landlords (Tier 01) for the quarter was zero, indicating a lack of new capital or interest in acquiring rental properties during this period.

The data points to a period of extreme illiquidity or a potential data reporting lag for Grand County. A quarter with zero recorded transactions for any buyer, investor or otherwise, is a highly unusual market event.

This halt in acquisitions prevents any analysis of which investor tiers are typically most active or how buying power is distributed. The data reflects a market that was, for this quarter, effectively closed.

The investor-owned housing market in Grand County is defined by the absolute dominance of small-scale landlords. Mom-and-pop investors (owning 1-10 properties) control a staggering 99.7% of the entire investor SFR portfolio.

First-time or single-property landlords are the foundation of this market. Investors in the '1 property' tier alone own 1,411 homes, which constitutes 74.6% of all landlord-owned SFRs in the county.

The next largest tiers reinforce this pattern. Two-property landlords hold 12.3% of the market (233 properties), and those with 3-5 properties control another 11.0% (208 properties). The concentration at the smallest scale is exceptionally high.

In stark contrast, there is no discernible presence of large-scale investors. Institutional landlords (Tier 09, 1000+ properties) own 0.0% of the market, and even mid-size landlords are nearly nonexistent, with tiers above 10 properties collectively owning just 0.3%.

This ownership structure paints a picture of a highly fragmented market composed of thousands of individual real estate investors rather than a few large portfolio holders. This is a classic small-investor market, a fact underscored in the property ownership by owner type report.

Individual investors are the primary owners in every single landlord tier in Grand County, leaving little room for corporate ownership. In the largest tier of single-property landlords, individuals own 1,168 homes (81.4%) versus 267 for companies (18.6%).

This pattern of individual dominance is remarkably consistent across portfolio sizes. Individuals own 81.0% of two-property portfolios and 84.4% of portfolios with 3-5 properties, their highest concentration.

There is no crossover point where companies become the majority owners. Their highest market share is just 26.5% in the 6-10 property tier, and their presence is negligible in the few tiers above that.

A comparison of purchasing power between these two owner types is not possible, as acquisition price data was unavailable for Grand County. It remains unknown if individuals or companies pay more for properties within the same tier.

The data confirms that the market structure is not only dominated by small landlords but specifically by small, individual landlords. Corporate investment strategy appears to have a very limited role in this particular housing market.

Geographic analysis reveals that investor activity in Grand County is almost entirely focused within a single area: the 84532 zip code. This zone is home to 1,814 investor-owned SFRs, representing the vast majority of the county's total.

Within this primary zip code, the investor ownership rate is a very high 44.2%, confirming that nearly half of the single-family housing stock is owned by landlords.

While 84532 dominates by volume, several smaller, adjacent zip codes show even higher rates of investor saturation. The 84525 zip code is 100.0% investor-owned, though it contains only a single SFR property in the dataset.

Other micro-markets also show high penetration. The 84515 zip code has a 71.4% investor ownership rate (5 properties), and 84540 has a 65.8% rate (25 properties), suggesting these areas may be dominated by vacation rentals or have limited traditional housing.

This distribution highlights a pattern of hyper-concentration. For practical purposes, the 84532 zip code *is* the Grand County investor market, with the surrounding areas being small, investor-saturated pockets.

A historical review of landlord transactions in Grand County could not be completed due to a lack of available data. This includes buys, sells, and landlord-to-landlord trades over time.

It is not possible to determine whether landlords have been net buyers or net sellers. Buy/sell ratios, which indicate market accumulation or disposition trends, cannot be calculated for any timeframe.

The prevalence of inter-landlord trading remains unknown. The percentage of purchases from other landlords, a key indicator of market liquidity and investor churn, is not available for analysis.

Price analysis of historical transactions is also not possible. The data does not allow for a comparison of average buy prices versus average sell prices, which would offer insights into profitability and market dynamics.

Similarly, institutional investor transaction patterns cannot be reviewed. Without this data, it's impossible to know if large-scale investors have historically been active in buying from or selling to the local market.

The fourth quarter of 2025 was marked by a total absence of transactional activity among Grand County's real estate investors. Landlords were involved in zero transactions, representing a 0.0% share of a market that recorded no sales at all.

This inactivity was uniform across all investor tiers. Transaction volumes for mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) and institutional investors (Tier 09) were both zero, indicating no properties were bought or sold by any segment.

Consequently, an analysis of Q4 pricing strategies is impossible. The average purchase price for every tier was $0, providing no insight into whether larger or smaller investors pay more or less for properties.

Inter-landlord trading was nonexistent during the quarter. With zero purchases made by investors, the percentage of properties bought from other landlords was 0%. This highlights a complete lack of liquidity within the investor community.

This data from Q4 2025 portrays a market in a state of stasis, where no assets changed hands among investors. This is the defining characteristic of the quarter's transaction landscape.