Lake market analysis
Lake County, Michigan sits at a median home price of $170,968, ranking 53rd nationally out of 1,000 counties analyzed and landing in the 93rd percentile overall, with a state rank of 7 out of 83 Michigan counties. The affordability index of 93 is the headline number here, meaning this market is meaningfully cheaper than the national baseline. Home prices appreciated 10.1% year-over-year, which is the primary engine driving the overall score of 75. The cash flow score, however, is 0, and the cap rate and cash-on-cash figures are not calculable from the available data, which itself signals something worth examining: without a confirmed rent figure in the dataset, underwriting cash flow here carries real uncertainty. Investors should treat this as an appreciation-leaning market until local rent comps are independently verified.
That appreciation profile, combined with the affordability index of 93 and a population of 12,285, defines who this market suits. An appreciation buyer or a patient buy-and-hold investor buying at $170,968 with a 20% down payment of $34,194 can enter at a relatively low basis for Michigan, which limits downside if prices correct. The 10.1% YoY price gain suggests upward momentum, though in a county this small, that figure can swing sharply on a handful of transactions. A pure cash-flow buyer looking for immediate monthly income should approach cautiously until rent-to-price ratios are confirmed, since the data does not support a reliable gross yield calculation here. A value-add operator who can identify below-market acquisitions, force equity through renovation, and set rents independently might be the best fit, entering at a low basis and benefiting from the appreciation tailwind while not relying on thin cash flow from day one.
The economic context for Lake County warrants candor. No economic anchors or employer data are provided in this dataset, and with a population of 12,285, this is a small, rural Michigan county. Small population bases generally mean thinner rental demand, fewer qualified tenants in the pool at any given time, and greater sensitivity to any single employer or industry disruption. Investors accustomed to secondary cities or suburban markets should recalibrate their vacancy assumptions accordingly. The stability score of 50 reflects this directly, sitting squarely at the midpoint and suggesting neither a resilient diversified economy nor a clearly deteriorating one.
The carry cost picture is a concrete underwriting consideration. At Michigan's state-average effective property tax rate of 1.54%, annual property tax on a $170,968 purchase comes to approximately $2,633, and insurance adds another $445 annually. Combined, that is $257 per month in tax and insurance before mortgage, maintenance, management, or vacancy. At 1.54%, Michigan's rate is high enough to deserve its own line on your underwrite, particularly in a low-rent rural market where that $257 monthly drag represents a meaningful share of potential gross rent. Note that 1.54% is a state-average estimate from Tax Foundation 2024 data; the actual county and township rate for Lake County may differ, so pulling the county assessor's millage rate before closing is essential, not optional.
The most material risks here are concentration and demographic. A county of 12,285 people has a shallow tenant pool by definition. If the local economy softens or population continues to drift, vacancy can spike without any systemic warning. Regulatory risk is not flagged in the data, so no landlord-hostile ordinances are specifically identified, but Michigan as a state has a reasonably landlord-neutral legal framework. Investors should still verify local ordinances before acquiring. No vacancy or crime statistics are provided here, and none are assumed.
Compared to its neighbors, Lake County's $170,968 median sits in the middle of the peer group. Iron County is cheaper at $138,682 with the same overall score of 75, making it a lower-basis alternative for buyers prioritizing entry price. Bay County at $175,060 is the only neighbor with confirmed rent data, showing a median rent of $1,143 and a rent-to-price ratio of 0.0784, which represents a gross yield that cash-flow buyers can actually model. Crawford County scores 76, one point higher than Lake, at $179,615. Huron County is the most expensive neighbor at $198,226 with a slightly lower score of 74. Choose Lake over its neighbors when the 10.1% appreciation rate and 93rd-percentile affordability index are the primary criteria, and when you have independent rent data supporting the underwrite. If confirmed cash flow is the priority today, Bay County's visible rent-to-price ratio makes it the more transparent choice.
Price History
Median Home Price
Median Rent
Historical data from Zillow ZHVI/ZORI
Score Breakdown
Rent data not available for cash flow calculation.
Based on 10.1% YoY price growth. Moderate growth (3-8%) scores highest.
Population data not available.
Based on price relative to estimated local incomes.
Scores are calculated using real Zillow home value and rent data, Census population data, and economic indicators. The weighted average produces the overall investment score. Markets with missing rent data use estimated values based on regional averages.
Investment Outlook
Strengths
- +Strong price appreciation (+10.1% YoY)
- +Affordable relative to local incomes
Challenges
- -Negative leverage (cap rate 0.0% < mortgage rate 6.9%)
- -Limited rent data (estimates used)
Economic Indicators
Who this market fits
- +Appreciation buyers: YoY growth is meaningfully above the long-run average
- −You can't tolerate negative leverage (cap rate below mortgage rate today)
Compare to Nearby Counties
Section 8 in Lake County: payment standards by ZIP, PHA waitlist status, and voucher counts are on VoucherMatch, the same HUD dataset with the tenant demand side attached.
The Bottom Line
Lake County in Michigan scores 75/100, ranking #53 of 1,000 US counties (top 7%). At 20% down and current rates, a median-priced rental roughly breaks even on cash flow. The deal works on appreciation or with better terms, not on month-one cash flow.