Union County

Union County, Indiana scores 92 on appreciation and carries a 7.1% year-over-year home price gain on a median purchase price of $199,747. That combination puts it squarely on the appreciation end of the spectrum. The cash flow score is 0 and the cap rate field returns 0, which signals that the data does not support a yield-driven underwrite here. Without a published gross rent figure for Union County, an investor cannot confidently model a cap rate or cash-on-cash return, and that absence is itself informative: this is not a market where rent data is thick and transparent. What is clear is that at a 7.1% annual price gain and an affordability index of 87, Union County sits in an unusual position, affordable relative to national benchmarks yet appreciating at a pace that compresses future entry points quickly. Nationally it ranks 14th out of 1,000 counties scored, landing in the 98th percentile, and 4th among Indiana's 92 counties. Those rankings are driven by the appreciation and affordability combination, not by yield.

The investor this market suits is one who can carry a property on reserves or ancillary income while waiting for price gains to do the work, or someone pursuing a buy-and-hold strategy in a low-cost market where equity accumulation at 7.1% annually beats many yield-focused alternatives on a total-return basis. At $199,747 the entry ticket is modest by national standards, and a 20% down payment of $39,949 keeps absolute capital at risk low. A value-add operator could find merit here if acquisition prices remain in the $199,000 range and forced appreciation through renovation can be extracted before exit, but the lack of visible rent comps makes it difficult to underwrite a value-add to a stabilized yield with confidence. Cash-flow buyers should look elsewhere; the data simply does not show a rent-to-price ratio that supports that thesis.

Union County's population of 7,041 is the central fact any investor must sit with. Small population counties at this size carry concentration risk by definition: a single employer contraction, a demographic shift, or a modest out-migration trend can move vacancy and absorption in ways that larger markets buffer. No economic anchor data was provided for Union County, so no specific employers or institutional demand drivers can be cited. What that absence means practically is that an investor cannot point to a hospital system, university, or manufacturing anchor as a floor on rental demand. That does not make the market uninvestable, but it does mean the appreciation thesis has to rest primarily on price trend momentum and relative affordability rather than on job-driven population inflows that can be independently verified.

On carrying costs, the combined monthly tax and insurance burden comes to $188, based on Indiana's state-average effective property tax rate of 0.85% and an insurance rate of 0.28%. That figure is a meaningful input on a $199,747 asset. The 0.85% rate carries a "normal" flag, meaning it is neither a tailwind nor a headwind relative to national norms, but investors should treat it as a state-average estimate only. The note attached to this data explicitly flags that actual county and township rates may differ, and in Indiana, where local taxing units vary considerably, the real number deserves a direct check with the county assessor before closing. At $188 per month, taxes and insurance alone consume a material share of any rent roll, which reinforces the earlier point that this is not a market to underwrite for yield without verified local rent comparables.

The risks here are concentrated in two areas. First, the population base of 7,041 means the rental pool is thin. Any investment that represents more than a small fraction of total rental housing stock in the county carries outsized exposure to local economic shocks. Second, the absence of a published rent-to-price ratio for Union County itself, combined with the zero cap rate return, creates genuine underwriting uncertainty. An investor cannot stress-test a vacancy scenario or debt-service coverage ratio without rent data, and buying purely on appreciation in a sub-10,000-population county requires conviction that price momentum persists, which is not guaranteed.

Comparing Union County to its neighbors clarifies the choice. Delaware County (Muncie) carries a rent-to-price ratio of 0.080, or roughly 0.96% monthly, on a median price of $160,460, and an overall score of 75. Miami County shows a rent-to-price ratio of 0.072 on a $163,132 median, also scoring 73. Both neighbors price in lower and yield higher, making them the better fit for a cash-flow buyer. Greene County matches Union nearly dollar-for-dollar on price at $198,077 and shares the same overall score of 78, offering no clear advantage either direction. Grant County at $147,231 is the cheapest entry in the comparison set, though its score of 75 trails Union by three points. Union County's argument over all of these is its 98th-percentile national ranking and its 7.1% appreciation rate, neither of which is matched in the neighbor data provided. An investor should choose Union over its neighbors specifically when the strategy is equity accumulation in an affordable, fast-appreciating small market, and should choose Delaware or Miami County when the strategy requires a verifiable yield from day one.