Investor Activity Pressure by County
PropertyRadar and CoreLogic charge for transaction-level data showing whether each closing was an LLC or an individual. We don't have that. What public ACS B25002 / B25003 + Redfin Data Center give us is a structural proxy: counties with high renter share + high vacancy + fast inventory churn are where investor activity is concentrated. Below is that proxy, scored 0–100, across every U.S. county with ACS demographics.
Highest investor pressure Aleutians West Census Area Alaska · Score 100 · 29.5% owner-occupied
High-pressure counties (≥70) 474 +914 more in "active" tier (55–69)
Counties tracked 3023 with current Redfin sales + ACS B25002/B25003
Top 75 counties — highest investor pressure
Read this as where you're competing with non-owner-occupied buyers. High-renter, high-vacancy, fast-churning markets price-clear differently than primary-residence-dominated ones.
| # | County | Score | Status | Median Price | Owner-Occ % | Vacancy % | Churn | DOM Compression |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aleutians West Census Area Alaska | 100 | High investor pressure | $480,000 | 29.5% | 29.8% | 100% | -91% |
| 2 | Bristol Bay Borough Alaska | 100 | High investor pressure | $340,000 | 51.9% | 65.9% | 33% | -1% |
| 3 | Denali Borough Alaska | 100 | High investor pressure | $235,000 | 78.2% | 59.2% | 25% | — |
| 4 | Lake and Peninsula Borough Alaska | 100 | High investor pressure | $275,000 | 60.6% | 76.2% | 50% | -53% |
| 5 | Yakutat Borough Alaska | 100 | High investor pressure | $50,000 | 60.9% | 47.1% | 50% | -4% |
| 6 | Alpine County California | 100 | High investor pressure | $482,000 | 81.0% | 70.2% | 3% | -98% |
| 7 | Mono County California | 100 | High investor pressure | $975,000 | 69.2% | 59.5% | 14% | -51% |
| 8 | Grand County Colorado | 100 | High investor pressure | $747,500 | 76.4% | 62.1% | 12% | -16% |
| 9 | Hinsdale County Colorado | 100 | High investor pressure | $190,000 | 79.7% | 65.8% | 5% | — |
| 10 | Mineral County Colorado | 100 | High investor pressure | $545,000 | 73.7% | 65.3% | 6% | -92% |
| 11 | San Juan County Colorado | 100 | High investor pressure | $573,700 | 55.5% | 49.7% | 8% | -18% |
| 12 | Summit County Colorado | 100 | High investor pressure | $1,237,500 | 69.2% | 61.2% | 15% | -26% |
| 13 | Camas County Idaho | 100 | High investor pressure | $266,770 | 75.8% | 51.1% | 43% | -28% |
| 14 | Clark County Idaho | 100 | High investor pressure | $315,000 | 63.9% | 43.0% | 100% | -96% |
| 15 | Valley County Idaho | 100 | High investor pressure | $730,000 | 85.8% | 70.0% | 13% | -62% |
| 16 | Tensas Parish Louisiana | 100 | High investor pressure | $945,000 | 69.6% | 41.9% | 50% | -91% |
| 17 | Dukes County Massachusetts | 100 | High investor pressure | $1,950,000 | 74.6% | 58.4% | 12% | -42% |
| 18 | Nantucket County Massachusetts | 100 | High investor pressure | $2,382,500 | 76.5% | 59.5% | 25% | — |
| 19 | Alcona County Michigan | 100 | High investor pressure | $257,500 | 89.6% | 50.6% | 19% | -33% |
| 20 | Lake County Michigan | 100 | High investor pressure | $214,950 | 81.2% | 63.3% | 14% | -55% |
| 21 | Mackinac County Michigan | 100 | High investor pressure | $269,500 | 77.4% | 51.5% | 16% | — |
| 22 | Roscommon County Michigan | 100 | High investor pressure | $223,950 | 84.3% | 50.5% | 21% | -45% |
| 23 | Aitkin County Minnesota | 100 | High investor pressure | $437,550 | 85.3% | 51.2% | 29% | — |
| 24 | Cass County Minnesota | 100 | High investor pressure | $323,000 | 84.9% | 47.4% | 23% | -45% |
| 25 | Cook County Minnesota | 100 | High investor pressure | $499,900 | 79.6% | 55.2% | 9% | -59% |
| 26 | Lake of the Woods County Minnesota | 100 | High investor pressure | $168,500 | 84.3% | 51.8% | 13% | -77% |
| 27 | Camden County Missouri | 100 | High investor pressure | $437,000 | 83.1% | 56.9% | 14% | -14% |
| 28 | Garfield County Montana | 100 | High investor pressure | $235,000 | 70.3% | 45.4% | 150% | — |
| 29 | Granite County Montana | 100 | High investor pressure | $349,900 | 76.4% | 47.2% | 9% | -50% |
| 30 | Cape May County New Jersey | 100 | High investor pressure | $745,000 | 79.3% | 55.5% | 24% | — |
| 31 | Catron County New Mexico | 100 | High investor pressure | $340,000 | 87.7% | 50.6% | 11% | -97% |
| 32 | Lincoln County New Mexico | 100 | High investor pressure | $359,500 | 79.5% | 47.2% | 6% | -40% |
| 33 | Hamilton County New York | 100 | High investor pressure | $392,000 | 82.5% | 73.3% | 16% | -1% |
| 34 | Avery County North Carolina | 100 | High investor pressure | $477,500 | 80.0% | 53.3% | 9% | -5% |
| 35 | Dare County North Carolina | 100 | High investor pressure | $667,500 | 77.8% | 52.7% | 17% | -3% |
| 36 | Forest County Pennsylvania | 100 | High investor pressure | $193,000 | 76.9% | 72.1% | 33% | -4% |
| 37 | Sullivan County Pennsylvania | 100 | High investor pressure | $167,450 | 83.2% | 54.7% | 16% | -85% |
| 38 | Briscoe County Texas | 100 | High investor pressure | $135,000 | 78.2% | 38.4% | 67% | -46% |
| 39 | Cottle County Texas | 100 | High investor pressure | $99,500 | 78.6% | 41.3% | 67% | -43% |
| 40 | Kent County Texas | 100 | High investor pressure | $70,000 | 77.0% | 43.4% | 100% | — |
| 41 | McMullen County Texas | 100 | High investor pressure | $659,000 | 76.8% | 48.5% | 50% | — |
| 42 | Daggett County Utah | 100 | High investor pressure | $485,000 | 82.8% | 77.3% | 36% | -53% |
| 43 | Rich County Utah | 100 | High investor pressure | $655,000 | 80.4% | 74.6% | 3% | -43% |
| 44 | Bath County Virginia | 100 | High investor pressure | $204,500 | 75.4% | 46.6% | 21% | -71% |
| 45 | Pocahontas County West Virginia | 100 | High investor pressure | $279,000 | 83.1% | 54.8% | 14% | — |
| 46 | Burnett County Wisconsin | 100 | High investor pressure | $337,500 | 85.3% | 53.8% | 26% | -30% |
| 47 | Florence County Wisconsin | 100 | High investor pressure | $191,000 | 90.0% | 54.7% | 14% | — |
| 48 | Forest County Wisconsin | 100 | High investor pressure | $421,250 | 82.4% | 54.5% | 16% | -35% |
| 49 | Sawyer County Wisconsin | 100 | High investor pressure | $375,000 | 77.4% | 47.1% | 22% | -42% |
| 50 | Vilas County Wisconsin | 100 | High investor pressure | $395,000 | 83.5% | 56.1% | 14% | -40% |
| 51 | Oscoda County Michigan | 99 | High investor pressure | $142,450 | 86.7% | 52.6% | 18% | — |
| 52 | Plumas County California | 98 | High investor pressure | $527,500 | 74.8% | 46.4% | 9% | -28% |
| 53 | Keweenaw County Michigan | 98 | High investor pressure | $525,000 | 91.7% | 52.4% | 9% | — |
| 54 | Loup County Nebraska | 98 | High investor pressure | $500,000 | 66.3% | 42.0% | — | -50% |
| 55 | Cimarron County Oklahoma | 98 | High investor pressure | $72,500 | 77.2% | 48.7% | — | -12% |
| 56 | Garfield County Utah | 98 | High investor pressure | $404,950 | 73.5% | 43.5% | 5% | -59% |
| 57 | Morgan County Missouri | 97 | High investor pressure | $374,950 | 79.7% | 45.9% | 25% | -27% |
| 58 | De Baca County New Mexico | 97 | High investor pressure | $112,500 | 69.0% | 37.6% | 40% | -92% |
| 59 | Iron County Wisconsin | 97 | High investor pressure | $174,850 | 86.9% | 47.1% | 10% | -42% |
| 60 | Hoonah-Angoon Census Area Alaska | 96 | High investor pressure | $195,000 | 72.2% | 47.0% | 20% | — |
| 61 | Harlan County Nebraska | 96 | High investor pressure | $51,975 | 84.8% | 36.5% | 100% | -68% |
| 62 | Real County Texas | 96 | High investor pressure | $442,000 | 75.6% | 44.2% | 19% | -37% |
| 63 | Wrangell Borough Alaska | 95 | High investor pressure | $260,000 | 56.6% | 29.9% | 60% | -97% |
| 64 | Sierra County California | 95 | High investor pressure | $381,500 | 78.3% | 42.5% | 13% | -85% |
| 65 | Hancock County Georgia | 95 | High investor pressure | $600,000 | 77.5% | 42.3% | 18% | -59% |
| 66 | Sioux County Nebraska | 95 | High investor pressure | $232,500 | 56.5% | 33.0% | 100% | -19% |
| 67 | Kane County Utah | 95 | High investor pressure | $429,500 | 81.7% | 49.0% | 6% | — |
| 68 | Summit County Utah | 95 | High investor pressure | $1,350,000 | 80.4% | 44.8% | 13% | -39% |
| 69 | Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area Alaska | 94 | High investor pressure | $161,650 | 70.7% | 41.5% | 40% | — |
| 70 | Iosco County Michigan | 94 | High investor pressure | $163,000 | 82.9% | 42.7% | 24% | -46% |
| 71 | Carroll County New Hampshire | 94 | High investor pressure | $519,000 | 81.2% | 44.9% | 18% | -30% |
| 72 | Dillingham Census Area Alaska | 93 | High investor pressure | $470,000 | 63.1% | 42.8% | 17% | — |
| 73 | Jackson County Colorado | 93 | High investor pressure | $165,000 | 73.2% | 45.1% | 8% | — |
| 74 | San Miguel County Colorado | 93 | High investor pressure | $850,000 | 65.2% | 39.5% | 3% | -38% |
| 75 | Rabun County Georgia | 93 | High investor pressure | $535,000 | 77.4% | 41.4% | 8% | -50% |
Most owner-occupied counties — primary residence markets
Low renter share + high ownership + low vacancy. Markets where you're competing primarily with families, not investors.
| # | County | Score | Status | Median Price | Owner-Occ % | Vacancy % | Churn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New Kent County Virginia | 30 | Owner-occupied dominant | $463,000 | 92.1% | 4.9% | 32% |
| 2 | Rockwall County Texas | 31 | Owner-occupied dominant | $420,000 | 82.6% | 4.6% | 18% |
| 3 | Nassau County New York | 31 | Owner-occupied dominant | $850,000 | 81.9% | 4.6% | 29% |
| 4 | Charles County Maryland | 31 | Owner-occupied dominant | $435,000 | 81.2% | 4.5% | 28% |
| 5 | Madison County Iowa | 31 | Owner-occupied dominant | $291,500 | 81.3% | 5.8% | 17% |
| 6 | Robertson County Tennessee | 32 | Owner-occupied dominant | $375,000 | 77.2% | 5.2% | 22% |
| 7 | Union County North Carolina | 32 | Owner-occupied dominant | $497,000 | 81.8% | 5.2% | 27% |
| 8 | Kendall County Illinois | 32 | Owner-occupied dominant | $400,000 | 84.2% | 2.7% | 35% |
| 9 | Forsyth County Georgia | 32 | Owner-occupied dominant | $642,500 | 85.0% | 4.3% | 23% |
| 10 | Wahkiakum County Washington | 33 | Owner-occupied dominant | $452,000 | 84.8% | 8.2% | 9% |
| 11 | Guadalupe County Texas | 33 | Owner-occupied dominant | $298,290 | 78.5% | 6.5% | 20% |
| 12 | Fort Bend County Texas | 33 | Owner-occupied dominant | $399,872 | 77.5% | 4.2% | 24% |
| 13 | Williamson County Tennessee | 33 | Owner-occupied dominant | $992,500 | 79.8% | 3.9% | 26% |
| 14 | Cheatham County Tennessee | 33 | Owner-occupied dominant | $399,000 | 82.0% | 7.4% | 22% |
| 15 | Putnam County Ohio | 33 | Owner-occupied dominant | $209,450 | 85.8% | 5.0% | 35% |
| 16 | Bullitt County Kentucky | 33 | Owner-occupied dominant | $283,100 | 83.9% | 5.4% | 32% |
| 17 | Miami County Kansas | 33 | Owner-occupied dominant | $357,500 | 77.6% | 4.0% | — |
| 18 | Will County Illinois | 33 | Owner-occupied dominant | $375,000 | 82.5% | 4.5% | 36% |
| 19 | Wilson County Texas | 34 | Owner-occupied dominant | $333,900 | 85.7% | 7.7% | 21% |
| 20 | Kaufman County Texas | 34 | Owner-occupied dominant | $305,240 | 78.6% | 5.8% | 18% |
| 21 | Andrews County Texas | 34 | Owner-occupied dominant | $98,000 | 76.3% | 4.0% | 2% |
| 22 | Pipestone County Minnesota | 34 | Owner-occupied dominant | $115,238 | 81.5% | 8.0% | 16% |
| 23 | Ascension Parish Louisiana | 34 | Owner-occupied dominant | $306,281 | 82.9% | 8.2% | — |
| 24 | Fayette County Georgia | 34 | Owner-occupied dominant | $548,075 | 81.0% | 4.8% | 29% |
| 25 | Elbert County Colorado | 34 | Owner-occupied dominant | $677,000 | 94.4% | 5.3% | 27% |
| 26 | Tooele County Utah | 35 | Owner-occupied dominant | $466,000 | 82.6% | 4.5% | 36% |
| 27 | Sumner County Tennessee | 35 | Owner-occupied dominant | $434,000 | 72.2% | 5.7% | 23% |
| 28 | York County South Carolina | 35 | Owner-occupied dominant | $423,750 | 73.4% | 5.5% | 27% |
| 29 | Tioga County New York | 35 | Owner-occupied dominant | $280,250 | 78.2% | 8.0% | 15% |
| 30 | Middlesex County New Jersey | 35 | Owner-occupied dominant | $540,000 | 63.5% | 3.5% | 22% |
Method & honest limits
- This is structural, not transactional. We don't see who closed each deal. We see where the housing stock is structurally tilted toward non-owner-occupied use.
- Renter share weighted heavily. A county with 50% owner occupancy gets +22.5 from this dimension; one with 75% gets +11. The non-owner share captures both individual landlords and institutional holders.
- Vacancy reflects two things. Genuine market vacancy + speculative / vacation-home holding. Both signal investor presence at the structural level.
- Inventory churn = homesSold / inventory. A churn of 50%+ per four-week period suggests cash buyers winning bids quickly — the market signature of investor activity.
- DOM compression bonus. When a county sells faster than its long-term average, that's a competitive-bidding signal. We give modest credit (up to +10) for materially below-average DOM.
- Floor 30, not 50. The baseline assumes most U.S. markets are owner-occupied dominant; raising score requires evidence in multiple dimensions.
Sources: U.S. Census ACS B25002 (occupancy) + B25003 (tenure), Redfin Data Center (county sales, inventory, DOM). Methodology composed by HomeStats.