Marshall County

Marshall County sits at a gross rent-to-price ratio of 5.95%, which lands it squarely in appreciation territory rather than cash-flow country. The model underwrite confirms this: at a $325,540 purchase price with 20% down, a 6.85% mortgage generates $1,707 in monthly principal and interest, against median rent of $1,613. Before expenses, the property is already underwater. Fold in the $565 in estimated monthly operating costs and the cash-on-cash return works out to negative 10.55%, with a cap rate of 3.86%. That cap rate is below what most buy-and-hold investors use as a minimum hurdle, and negative cash-on-cash means you are writing a check every month to own this asset. The offsetting data point is year-over-year price appreciation of 3.14% and an appreciation score of 80 out of 100, which is the strongest signal in Marshall's profile. This is a market where the return story, if there is one, lives in the equity column, not the rent roll.

The investor this market suits is someone who can afford to carry negative cash flow, believes in continued price appreciation, and is buying with a five-plus year horizon. An appreciation buyer with patient capital and a low basis from a 1031 exchange or existing equity can treat the monthly shortfall as a cost of holding an asset in a county that is outpacing many of its Tennessee peers on price growth. Cash-flow buyers should look elsewhere, full stop: a 3.86% cap rate at current financing rates means debt service consumes the entire net operating income and then some. Value-add operators may find some runway if they can buy below median, force appreciation through renovation, and refinance into better numbers, but the entry-point math at $325,540 median does not leave much room for error on a flip-to-rent strategy.

The monthly tax and insurance burden adds $290 to carrying costs, which is already embedded in the $565 estimated expense figure. Tennessee's state-average effective property tax rate is 0.71%, which the data flags as normal, meaning this is not a meaningful headwind or tailwind on its own. Annual taxes run approximately $2,311 and insurance approximately $1,172 at current rates. Neither figure is alarming in isolation, but in a market where cash flow is already negative by $658 per month, every cost line deserves scrutiny. Investors used to zero-tax or very-low-tax states should note that Tennessee's 0.71% state-average is a reasonable baseline, though actual county and township assessments can differ, so pull the Marshall County assessor data before finalizing your proforma.

The stability score of 50 out of 100 is the number that deserves the most attention as a risk flag. Marshall County has a population of 34,567, which is small enough that the rental market is thinly traded. A handful of large employers or institutional tenants can meaningfully move vacancy in either direction, and the county has limited diversification buffers that a metro market provides. The affordability index of 60 suggests the market is moderately accessible to owner-occupant buyers, which is actually a mild risk for landlords: as rates eventually fall, renters in this price range may convert to buyers, tightening your tenant pool. No economic anchor or employer data was provided for this county, so no conclusions about job-base stability can be drawn here, but any serious underwrite should start with a direct look at who the major employers are and what their trajectory looks like.

Compared to the neighboring counties in the dataset, Marshall is the most expensive market on median home price at $325,540, and it carries the weakest rent-to-price ratio of the group. Shelby County at $215,746 median and a 7.58% rent-to-price ratio, and Madison County at $222,286 median and 7.48%, both offer meaningfully better cash-flow starting points and overall scores that are roughly equivalent to Marshall's 62. Greene County at $240,638 median and a 6.52% rent-to-price ratio also outperforms Marshall on the cash-flow math. Anderson County is the closest comparable on price at $301,800, but still posts a 6.36% rent-to-price ratio versus Marshall's 5.95%. An investor prioritizing monthly cash flow should route capital toward Shelby or Madison before Marshall. The only case for choosing Marshall over its neighbors is a conviction that its 3.14% annual appreciation and 80-point appreciation score reflect a structural demand story, whether that is proximity to a growth corridor, land constraints, or an emerging employer base, that the neighboring counties cannot match. Without that thesis clearly articulated and supported by ground-level research, the numbers alone favor a cheaper entry point elsewhere in the state.