Coahoma County

Coahoma County, MS sits at a median home price of $50,215, a figure that immediately signals deep affordability but also flags a market with real structural questions. Prices declined 6.34% year-over-year, which is not a rounding error or seasonal noise. That trajectory, combined with a cash-flow score of 0, a cap rate of 0, and zeroed-out cash-on-cash return in the investment estimate, tells you the model cannot construct a positive return scenario at current rent levels and a 6.85% interest rate. The affordability index hits 100, the ceiling, meaning on raw price-to-income terms this is as cheap as it gets. But cheap entry and investable are not the same thing. The county ranks 600th out of 1,000 nationally, sitting in the 23rd percentile, and 46th out of 80 Mississippi counties. Mississippi already skews toward lower-price, lower-rent markets, so landing near the bottom quartile of that state peer group is meaningful.

This is not a market for appreciation buyers. A 12 appreciation score and a confirmed year-over-year price decline of 6.34% on an already sub-$55,000 asset make that case plainly. It is not clearly a cash-flow market either, given the zeroed estimates. The investor this might suit is a deep-value or distressed-asset operator who acquires at prices well below the county median, does targeted renovation to capture the rental premium between updated and unimproved stock, and underwrites to gross yields in the 12-16% range that low-price markets sometimes make possible on individual assets even when the aggregate data is weak. That is a value-add thesis that requires local property management infrastructure, tenant sourcing discipline, and realistic vacancy assumptions, none of which the aggregate county data can confirm. Any investor coming to this market purely on median price without a firm handle on achievable rents and vacancy is walking into a trap.

The taxInsurance data provides a modest tailwind on carry costs. At Mississippi's state-average effective property tax rate of 0.81%, which the Tax Foundation flags as a normal rate though actual county and township rates may differ, the annual tax bill on a $50,215 asset runs roughly $407. Combined with an estimated $251 in annual insurance, the all-in monthly tax-plus-insurance figure is approximately $55. On a sub-$1,000 rent scenario that $55 burden is manageable, and the low combined rate is not a headwind the way a 1.5%+ property tax state would be. That said, insurance costs in Mississippi warrant a county-level check given the state's exposure to severe weather events, and any per-property underwrite should verify actual insurance quotes rather than relying on the state-average percentage.

No economic anchor data was provided for Coahoma County, so employer-specific demand drivers cannot be assessed from this data set. What the population figure of 21,264 does indicate is a small, relatively thin rental market. Thin markets amplify concentration risk: a single large employer reducing headcount, a highway bypass, or a hospital closure can move occupancy rates in ways that diversified metro markets absorb without showing up in the data. An investor running even a small portfolio of 5-10 units in a 21,000-person county is carrying meaningful concentration exposure to whatever the local economic engine turns out to be.

Comparing Coahoma to its neighbors sharpens the picture. Panola County carries a median home price of $184,391 with an overall score of 51, essentially identical to Coahoma's 50 on a composite basis but at nearly four times the price. Leflore County at $79,565 and a score of 51 presents the more direct comparison: slightly higher prices, a marginally better composite score, and presumably a rent base that scales with the asset value. Winston and Copiah counties both sit at $133,000-$137,000 with scores of 53, offering incrementally better composite rankings at a price point where financing math at 6.85% is more likely to close to a positive cash-flow outcome. Adams County at $116,847 scores 46, below Coahoma's 50, suggesting its own structural challenges at a price point that is still more than double Coahoma's median.

The choice to invest in Coahoma over any of these neighbors comes down to one narrow scenario: an investor who has identified a specific off-market asset at a price and rent combination that pencils to a gross yield above 14%, has local management already in place, and is not relying on appreciation or price recovery to generate returns. If that specific asset-level thesis exists, Coahoma's rock-bottom entry price does minimize capital at risk in absolute dollar terms. If the thesis is anything broader than that, every neighboring county in this data set offers either a better composite score, a more liquid resale market implied by higher median prices, or both.