Mackinac County

Mackinac County's median home price of $230,738 has appreciated 7.54% year-over-year, and the market scores 94 out of 100 for appreciation, placing it in the 96th percentile nationally out of 1,000 counties and 5th in Michigan out of 83. Those are not small distinctions. The cash-flow score, however, is 0, and the cap rate and cash-on-cash return figures are likewise zero, meaning this market does not present a conventional income-producing landlord opportunity on standard underwriting assumptions. There is no rent-to-price ratio in the data for Mackinac itself, but the appreciation trajectory and the complete absence of a viable cap rate together tell you exactly where this market sits: firmly on the appreciation end of the spectrum, with cash flow either negligible or negative depending on financing and expense assumptions.

That positioning defines who belongs here and who does not. An appreciation-focused buyer who can tolerate breakeven or slightly negative monthly carry, and who is underwriting to a 5-to-10-year hold with price gains doing the heavy lifting, will find a market scoring 94 on appreciation with 7.54% trailing price growth genuinely compelling. A cash-flow buyer hunting yield will not find it here. The affordability index of 81 and a median price of $230,738 suggest entry costs are not prohibitive for a rural northern Michigan county, but the income side of the equation simply does not support a landlord who needs the rent check to cover the mortgage. A value-add operator could theoretically force appreciation through renovation in a market already trending upward, but the small population of 10,843 means buyer and renter depth is limited, and exit options should be stress-tested before committing capital to a heavy rehab.

The stability score of 50 deserves attention alongside the appreciation story. A county of under 11,000 people in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, anchored to seasonal tourism around Mackinac Island and the Straits of Mackinac, carries real concentration risk. Rental demand in heavily tourism-dependent markets tends to be seasonal and transient rather than the durable, year-round occupancy that underwrites a conventional buy-and-hold. If your business model depends on consistent 12-month tenancy, you need to understand whether the local rental base is retirees and remote workers or hospitality workers who follow the season. No vacancy data is provided here, but small-population tourism markets historically see wider occupancy swings than diversified suburban counties, and the stability score of 50 reflects that.

On carry costs, the tax and insurance load is a real number to put on your model. Using the state-average effective rate of 1.54%, which the Tax Foundation 2024 data classifies as high, the estimated annual property tax on a $230,738 purchase runs to $3,553, and insurance adds another $600 annually. Together that is $346 per month in tax and insurance before you account for maintenance, management, vacancy, or debt service. At 1.54%, Michigan's rate is high enough that it deserves its own line on your underwrite rather than being rolled into a rough expense ratio. Worth noting: this is a state-average estimate, and Mackinac County and individual township millage rates may differ materially, so pulling the actual assessor data before closing is not optional.

Compared to its neighbors, Mackinac stands apart on appreciation and overall rank but trails on measurable cash-flow metrics. Chippewa County scores 78 overall at a median of $202,561, and Wayne County (Detroit metro) scores 78 with a median of $172,107 and a rent-to-price ratio of 9.59%, which is one of the cleaner cash-flow signals in this peer group. Bay County offers a ratio of 7.84% at a $175,060 median. If you need yield and monthly cash flow, Wayne or Bay County give you actual rent data to underwrite against. Crawford County at $179,615 and Iron County at $138,682 are cheaper entry points but score lower overall. An investor should choose Mackinac over these neighbors specifically when the thesis is price appreciation in a low-inventory, geographically constrained northern Michigan tourism market, when the hold period is long enough to absorb potential seasonal softness, and when the monthly carry deficit, if any, is funded from other income rather than the property itself.