Chickasaw County

Chickasaw County sits at a median home price of $142,783, down 2.4% year-over-year, with an affordability index of 99, meaning the typical home here is essentially at the outer edge of what a median-income household can carry. The overall score of 60 out of 100 lands this county at the 52nd national percentile across the 1,000-county dataset, and 30th out of 80 Mississippi counties. The cash flow score is zero, which is the most important number on the page: the dataset does not return a calculable cap rate or cash-on-cash return for this market, signaling that at a 6.85% financing rate the rent-to-price relationship is too thin to produce modeled positive cash flow at the median purchase price. Appreciation scored 38 out of 100, and with prices already sliding 2.4% over the past year, there is no near-term price momentum story to offset the absent cash flow.

That scorecard narrows the viable buyer profile considerably. A pure cash-flow buyer running conventional financing has no case here at the modeled numbers. A long-term appreciation buyer faces a market with a 38 appreciation score and a price trend currently moving in the wrong direction. Where Chickasaw could make sense is for a cash buyer or a heavily discounted acquisition, where eliminating the $0 modeled cash flow problem by removing the mortgage changes the math entirely, or for a value-add operator who can manufacture spread between purchase price and rent that the median does not reflect. The affordability index of 99 and median price of $142,783 do mean that entry barriers are low, and a cash buyer deploying capital in a market this affordable can generate returns that financed buyers cannot. Stability scored 50 out of 100, so even the buy-and-hold-forever thesis requires accepting meaningful uncertainty about long-term demand.

On carry costs, the combined monthly tax and insurance burden comes to $156, using a state-average effective property tax rate of 0.81% (Tax Foundation 2024) and an insurance rate of 0.50%. That is $1,157 annually in taxes and $714 in insurance on a $142,783 asset. The tax rate flags as normal rather than a structural headwind, and at 0.81% it is not the underwriting problem it would be in a high-tax state. However, Mississippi property insurance deserves attention: coastal exposure in the state has pushed rates up in recent years, and while Chickasaw sits inland, the 0.50% insurance estimate should be stress-tested against actual quoted rates before closing, particularly as carrier availability tightens statewide. The $156 monthly combined figure is manageable on its own, but in a market where cash flow is already modeled at zero, every dollar of carry matters.

The data does not include economic anchor or employer detail for Chickasaw County, so specific demand drivers cannot be cited. What the population figure of 17,024 does communicate is that this is a small, rural market. Small population counties carry concentration risk by definition: a single employer contraction, a plant closure, or demographic outmigration can move vacancy rates in ways that larger metro markets absorb more gradually. With a stability score of 50 and no economic anchor data to point to as a counterweight, an investor underwriting this county should model a stress scenario where occupancy runs below expectations for an extended period and confirm the asset still survives on cash reserves.

Comparing Chickasaw to its neighbors clarifies where it fits in the regional landscape. Pike County at $97,345 and an overall score of 61 is cheaper and scores slightly higher overall, which makes it the more natural cash-flow hunting ground for an investor willing to go further down the price ladder. Neshoba County at $140,745 and a score of 59 is nearly identical on price to Chickasaw but scores lower, making Chickasaw the marginal winner between those two. Smith County at $154,816 and a score of 59 is pricier with a worse score, harder to justify over Chickasaw. The more instructive comparisons are Forrest County at $182,640 with a rent-to-price ratio of 7.34% and Harrison County at $220,811 with a ratio of 7.55%: both of those markets return actual rent data that produces a calculable gross yield, and both score 62 overall. If cash flow is the objective, Forrest and Harrison have the rent-to-price evidence to support underwriting a financed deal; Chickasaw does not. Choose Chickasaw over those two only when the price point is the constraint, when you are buying cash, or when you have sourced a specific asset at enough of a discount to the median to manufacture the spread the market-level data cannot.