Bastrop County

Bastrop's numbers tell a clear story: this is a borderline cash-flow market that leans negative at current prices and financing costs. The gross rent-to-price ratio sits at 5.79%, which is thin. Running a standard underwrite at 6.85% on an 80% LTV loan against a $351,578 purchase price produces a monthly mortgage of $1,843 and estimated expenses of $594, set against median rent of $1,697. That yields negative $740 per month in cash flow and a cash-on-cash return of -10.98%. The cap rate of 3.76% is below what most disciplined buy-and-hold investors require to justify the risk of a single-asset, illiquid position. The appreciation story offers little rescue: home prices declined 4.58% year-over-year, and the appreciation score of 27 out of 100 ranks this county among the weaker performers on that dimension. Bastrop sits firmly toward the cash-flow end of the spectrum in theory, but the actual numbers don't clear the bar on either side right now.

The investor profile this market suits is narrow. A cash-flow buyer needs to see positive returns at realistic leverage, and Bastrop doesn't deliver that at the median price and current interest rates without either a meaningful price discount, a below-market acquisition, or a significant value-add component that lifts rents above the $1,697 median. A value-add operator who can buy distressed assets at a 15-20% discount to median and push rents through renovation has the best shot at making this pencil, since the underlying rent level isn't catastrophically low, it's just that the purchase price has not corrected far enough relative to income. A pure appreciation buyer should look elsewhere: a 4.58% price decline and a score of 27 on appreciation signal this is not a market currently rewarding that thesis. The affordability index of 55 and the overall score of 47, placing Bastrop in the 17th percentile nationally, confirm this is not a top-tier market for any single strategy.

No economic anchors or employer data were provided for Bastrop, so the underlying drivers of rental demand, job stability, and population trajectory cannot be assessed from the available inputs. What the demographic data does show is a county of roughly 98,000 people, which is a mid-sized market, large enough to have real rental demand but small enough that tenant pools can concentrate around a limited number of local industries. Investors should conduct independent due diligence on employment concentration and major employer health before committing capital.

The tax and insurance carry deserves its own line in any underwrite here. At a state-average effective property tax rate of 1.80%, which the Tax Foundation classifies as high, and with actual county and township rates potentially diverging from that figure, the annual property tax estimate on this asset is $6,328, or $527 per month. Add estimated insurance of $1,758 annually, and the combined monthly tax-and-insurance load is $674. That single line item alone consumes nearly 40% of gross rent. Texas has no state income tax, which is the standard offset investors cite, but that benefit accrues to the owner's personal income, not to the property's operating economics. At 1.80%, the tax rate is high enough that even modest rate variation at the county level could move your actual carry cost meaningfully in either direction. Model it conservatively.

The primary risk in Bastrop is the combination of price-to-rent compression and ongoing price softness. If prices continue to decline and rents do not expand, investors who bought near the median face equity erosion without income compensation. There is also the scale risk inherent in any sub-100,000-population county: a single large employer contraction or a demographic shift away from the area can move vacancy materially. No vacancy data was provided here, so that risk is flagged conceptually rather than quantified.

The neighbor comparison is striking and somewhat misleading at first glance. The five neighboring counties in the dataset, Jim Wells, Brooks, Starr, Baylor, and Garza, all carry similar overall scores in the 47-48 range, but their median home prices range from $69,595 to $133,520, a fraction of Bastrop's $351,578. These are geographically and economically distinct markets, not true Austin-area suburban comparables, and the data likely reflects the algorithm's scoring neighbors by score proximity rather than physical proximity. An investor should not read this as "I can buy a similar market for $120,000 less nearby." What the comparison does underscore is that at Bastrop's price point, you are paying a premium that the current cash-flow metrics do not support. Choose Bastrop over these alternatives only if you have high conviction in a specific submarket, a specific asset at a significant discount, or a value-add thesis with a credible exit to a growing owner-occupant buyer pool tied to Austin-area spillover demand, none of which can be validated from this data alone.