Gibson County

Gibson County prices its entry point at $178,894 median, against a median rent of $1,200.78, producing a rent-to-price ratio of 0.0806, or roughly 80 cents of monthly rent per $1,000 of purchase price. That sits comfortably above the threshold where cash-flow math starts to work, and the 5.24% cap rate confirms the asset-level yield is real. The complication is in the financing layer: at 6.85% on an 80% LTV loan, the monthly mortgage alone comes to $938, and once you add $420 in estimated operating expenses, the modeled position is negative $157 per month cash-on-cash, translating to a -4.58% cash-on-cash return. That gap is not a market problem, it is a capital structure problem. An investor who brings more equity, buys at a discount to median, or waits for rate relief closes it quickly. Home price appreciation ran 2.09% year-over-year, which is modest, so this market is not pricing in a growth story. Gibson County belongs squarely on the cash-flow end of the spectrum, with appreciation as a secondary benefit rather than a thesis.

The buyer this market suits is a cash-flow-oriented investor who either has the equity to reduce debt service or is hunting below-median acquisitions where the rent-to-price ratio stretches further. The affordability index of 92 tells you the county is meaningfully more affordable than national norms, which supports both tenant demand (people can afford to rent here rather than being priced into ownership) and acquisition price discipline. A value-add operator also has a reasonable case: buying distressed assets below $178,894, lifting rents toward or above the $1,200 median through renovation, and achieving a cap rate north of 5.24% on improved rents. The appreciation score of 71 out of 100 and the 2.09% price growth suggest this is not the market for a speculative land-hold or a growth-equity play; that investor would be misallocating capital here.

No economic anchor or employer data was provided for Gibson County, so employer-level analysis is omitted. What the stability score of 50 out of 100 does flag is that demand-side durability deserves scrutiny in your underwriting. A county of 50,455 people with a mid-range stability score warrants examination of tenant pool depth and local employment diversity before committing to a multi-unit position.

On carry costs, the combined monthly tax and insurance burden is $160, using a state-average effective property tax rate of 0.71% and an insurance rate of 0.36%. That $160 figure is already baked into the $420 estimated expense line, so there is no surprise there, but it is worth isolating because Tennessee's 0.71% rate lands in normal territory, neither a headwind nor a meaningful tailwind. The honest caveat required here: that 0.71% is a state-average estimate from Tax Foundation 2024 data, and your specific county or township rate may differ. Pull the Gibson County assessor's actual millage before finalizing your underwrite.

The primary risk to flag is scale and concentration. At 50,455 residents, Gibson is a small county, and small-county rental markets can see vacancy move sharply with a single large employer shift or a regional economic disruption. The stability score of 50 is the lowest sub-score in the profile, which directionally confirms that concern. No vacancy or crime data was provided, so those dimensions require independent research. Regulatory risk in Tennessee is generally landlord-friendly relative to coastal states, but that characterization should be verified at the county and municipality level before assuming it applies uniformly within Gibson.

Compared to its neighbors, Gibson's entry point is the most competitive in the peer group except for Carroll County at $180,314, essentially equivalent. But Gibson's overall score of 73 is the highest in the comparison set, above Claiborne at 74 only marginally, and well above Rhea at 68, Lincoln at 68, Anderson at 62, and Carroll at 63. Anderson County is the starkest contrast: median home price of $301,800 against a median rent of $1,600.74 produces a rent-to-price ratio of only 0.0636, which is materially worse for cash-flow math than Gibson's 0.0806. An investor choosing between Gibson and Anderson is essentially choosing between a cash-flow posture at $178,894 and a growth-adjacent posture at $301,800 with a thinner yield. For a buyer whose primary return driver is current income or who is equity-constrained, Gibson is the better fit. For a buyer chasing population growth and appreciation in a larger metro orbit, Anderson's higher price point may be justified by factors outside this dataset. Within the Tennessee peer set, Gibson ranks fifth out of 95 counties overall, placing it in a genuinely differentiated position for investors focused on yield at an accessible price.