Treasure County

Treasure County, Montana sits at a median home price of $202,948 with home values declining 3.0% year-over-year, placing it near the affordable end of the Montana spectrum. The data does not supply a median rent or gross rent multiplier for Treasure directly, and the cap rate, cash-on-cash return, and estimated cash flow all return zero, which means the model cannot underwrite a cash-flow position here with any confidence. What the data does tell you is that the affordability index scores 87 out of 100, the overall investment score lands at 55 out of 100, and the county ranks 501st out of 1,000 nationally, sitting at the 36th percentile. With no usable rent data in the inputs, this market cannot be evaluated on a price-to-rent basis, and any investor who needs to see a cap rate before committing capital will have to source local rent comps independently before this county makes it past the screening stage.

Given the zeroed-out cash-flow metrics, Treasure does not suit a pure cash-flow buyer at this stage of analysis. The appreciation score of 35 out of 100, combined with a 3.0% decline in home prices over the past year, rules out a straightforward appreciation play as well. The affordability score of 87 is the most compelling single number here, and it points toward a value-add or opportunistic buyer who can acquire at $202,948, manufacture rent through renovation or repositioning, and underwrite their own exit without leaning on a pre-built model. The stability score of 50 suggests neither a particularly safe nor a distressed environment. For most serious buy-and-hold operators, Treasure's numbers in their current form represent a research project, not a deployment decision.

The county has a population of 680, and that figure is the single most important fact in this analysis. A market this small has no real rental pool depth. One or two vacant units can swing occupancy metrics dramatically. There is no economic anchor data provided, so no comment can be made on employer concentration or job base. What the population figure alone tells you is that landlord success here is almost entirely idiosyncratic: the right property in the right condition rented to the right tenant can work, but you are not underwriting a market, you are underwriting a specific asset in near-isolation. Institutional-style portfolio building is not possible at this population level.

On carry costs, the combined monthly tax and insurance estimate comes to $205, based on Montana's state-average effective property tax rate of 0.83% and an insurance rate of 0.38%, applied to the $202,948 purchase price. The tax rate is flagged as normal, neither a meaningful tailwind nor a drag, and at roughly $140 per month in taxes it is not the variable that will make or break a deal here. The insurance estimate adds roughly $64 per month. As always, these figures use a state-average rate, and the actual county or township rate may differ, so verify with a local assessor before finalizing any underwrite.

The primary risk here is concentration, and it is severe. A population of 680 means the entire renter universe could be measured in dozens of households. Any single economic disruption, employer loss, or demographic shift affects a meaningful percentage of potential tenants. Regulatory data is not provided, but small rural Montana counties generally carry lighter landlord-tenant regulatory burden than urban markets, which is a qualitative tailwind without being quantifiable from the inputs here.

Against its neighbors, Treasure's $202,948 median sits below Custer County ($230,529, score 56), Carbon County ($486,506, score 56), Richland County ($266,438, score 57), and Cascade County ($331,268, score 57), and just above Carter County ($180,468, score 55). The overall scores across this entire group are tightly clustered between 55 and 57, meaning none of these markets separates itself on quality. Cascade County is the one neighbor with actual rent data, showing a median rent of $1,335 against a median home price of $331,268, implying a rent-to-price ratio of 0.48%, which is not a cash-flow market either. If you are choosing between Treasure and its neighbors strictly on entry price, Treasure is the second-cheapest option behind Carter, but the 680-person population is a disqualifying constraint for most operators that Carter's data does not address. An investor with deep local knowledge of Treasure's specific rental dynamics and a specific asset in mind might find the low entry price and normal tax burden acceptable. Anyone underwriting from a distance should start with Cascade or Custer, where the population base, however modest, at least generates enough rental transaction data to inform a proper underwrite.