Crawford (WI) Investor Pulse Report (2026-Q1)

In Crawford County, investors hold a significant 22.9% of the single-family residential market, totaling 1,068 properties out of 4,666 available. This highlights a substantial rental market presence within the county's housing stock.

Ownership is heavily skewed towards individuals over corporate entities. Individual landlords own 833 properties, comprising 78.0% of the investor portfolio, while companies own the remaining 253 properties (23.7%).

The landlord landscape is composed of 1,254 distinct entities, with individual real estate investors (1,065) outnumbering companies (189) by more than five to one. This structure points to a market dominated by local, small-scale operators rather than large firms.

A striking 95.8% of investor-owned properties (1,023 out of 1,068) are owned outright with cash, while only 4.2% (45 properties) are financed. This indicates a low-leverage, high-equity environment, suggesting financial stability among local landlords.

The portfolio is clearly rental-focused, with 1,050 properties identified as rented. This near-total alignment of investor-owned properties with rental status underscores their primary role as housing providers in the local market.

In the most recent quarter, there was no recorded SFR acquisition activity by landlords in Crawford County. Consequently, a direct price comparison between investor and traditional homeowner purchases is not possible for this period.

The absence of transactions prevents any analysis of the price gap between landlords and homeowners, which in active markets often reveals investor purchasing advantages. This market stillness suggests a period of holding rather than expansion.

Historical data from 2020-2023 indicates an average landlord acquisition price of $109,551. However, this average is based on zero properties transacted in the provided dataset for that timeframe, making it an unreliable benchmark for current valuations.

Without recent purchases, it is impossible to determine price appreciation trends from the pandemic era into the current market. The lack of activity itself is the primary finding, indicating a dormant investment environment.

Similarly, the lack of purchases means no distinction can be made between prices paid by individual versus company landlords. The market has not produced the necessary data points for such a comparison.

Investor purchasing activity came to a complete standstill in Crawford County, with landlords acquiring zero of the zero total SFR properties sold in the quarter. This 0.0% market share reflects a total pause in investment acquisitions.

The lack of activity was universal across all investor sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords (1-10 properties) recorded no purchases, mirroring the inactivity of larger investor tiers.

Institutional investors (1,000+ properties) were also absent from the purchasing market, acquiring zero properties. This is consistent with their non-existent ownership footprint in the county.

A key indicator of market growth, the formation of new landlords, was also flat. Zero new single-property investors entered the Crawford County market this quarter, signaling a lack of new capital deployment into the local rental scene.

The transactional data reflects a market in a holding pattern, with no expansion from any segment of the investor community. This contrasts sharply with more dynamic markets where investors are actively competing for inventory.

The investor market in Crawford County is defined by the dominance of small-scale operators. Mom-and-pop landlords, who own between 1 and 10 properties, collectively control 97.5% of all investor-owned SFRs.

Single-property landlords are the bedrock of the market, holding 862 properties, which represents 79.6% of the entire investor portfolio. This signifies a highly fragmented ownership landscape where the typical landlord owns just one rental property.

Mid-size landlords are a minor segment, with those owning 11-50 properties controlling only 2.2% of the stock. Even smaller, investors with 101-1,000 properties hold just 3 properties, or 0.3% of the total.

Reflecting its rural character, Crawford County has zero presence from institutional investors (1,000+ properties). Their 0.0% market share underscores the complete absence of large-scale corporate landlords.

Due to the lack of recent transaction data across tiers, it's not possible to compare acquisition prices or analyze how purchasing strategies might differ between small and large investors in the current market.

Individual investors form the foundation of ownership in Crawford County across all major portfolio tiers. In the dominant single-property tier, individuals own 735 of the 862 properties, an 84.3% share.

As portfolio sizes increase slightly, company ownership grows but never overtakes individuals. In the two-property tier, individuals own 55 properties (63.2%) versus 32 for companies (36.8%).

The pattern continues in the 3-5 property tier, where individuals hold a 62.8% majority with 54 properties compared to 32 properties (37.2%) owned by companies. There is no tier where companies are the majority owner.

The data clearly shows that company investment is concentrated in the multi-property tiers, but they remain a minority partner in the market's structure. Individuals maintain control throughout the foundational mom-and-pop segments.

Given the zero-transaction environment, it is not possible to compare recent acquisition prices or growth patterns between individual and company investors within these tiers.

Investor ownership in Crawford County is geographically concentrated, with the 53821 zip code hosting the largest number of investor-owned properties at 455. This single area accounts for a substantial portion of the county's total investor portfolio.

Following 53821, the zip codes 54626 and 54628 each contain 149 investor-owned properties, and 54631 contains 90, demonstrating other key pockets of investment activity.

However, the highest concentration rates are found elsewhere. The 54645 zip code has the highest investor ownership percentage at 42.0%, indicating that over two-fifths of its SFR housing is investor-owned.

Other areas with high investor penetration include 54624 (40.4%), 54628 (36.4%), and 54626 (33.8%). These regions have a significantly higher proportion of rental properties compared to the county-wide average of 22.9%.

This distinction between high-volume and high-percentage areas is critical. While 53821 has the most units, smaller zip codes like 54645 and 54624 represent more saturated rental markets, which could present different opportunities and risks for investors.

The historical transaction log for Crawford County shows no buy or sell activity for landlords. This complete absence of data makes it impossible to assess long-term market trends or investor sentiment.

With zero transactions, a buy/sell ratio cannot be calculated. Therefore, whether landlords have historically been net buyers or net sellers in this market remains unknown.

Similarly, institutional investor (1,000+ tier) activity cannot be analyzed. Their net position is neutral by default due to a lack of both acquisitions and dispositions in the historical data provided.

The degree of market liquidity through inter-landlord trading is also indeterminable. There is no data on what percentage of transactions occur between existing landlords.

Finally, a comparison of average buy and sell prices to infer potential profit margins cannot be conducted. The transactional data needed for such an analysis is not present for this county.

In the most recent quarter, landlords were involved in zero SFR transactions in Crawford County. This resulted in a 0.0% share of all market activity, reflecting a period of complete inactivity.

The transactional freeze was consistent across all investor sizes. Mom-and-pop landlords (Tiers 01-04) recorded zero transactions, matching the zero transactions from mid-size and institutional tiers.

As a result of no purchases, average purchase prices cannot be determined for any tier. It is impossible to analyze whether smaller investors paid more or less than their larger counterparts.

There was no inter-landlord trading activity recorded. The percentage of properties bought from other landlords was 0.0%, indicating no portfolio churning or sales between existing market participants.

The lack of buying and selling activity means there is no price spread to analyze between the highest and lowest purchasing tiers. The market data signals a dormant period for investor transactions.