Glasscock County

Glasscock County sits at a median home price of $256,363, down 8.2% year-over-year, with a cash-flow score of 0 and a cap rate of 0. Those zeros are not placeholders, they are the story. The model finds no measurable rental income yield here, which means the price-to-rent relationship is either undefined or deeply unfavorable. With an overall score of 47 out of 100 and a national percentile of 17, this county ranks 652nd out of 1,000 counties evaluated. The appreciation score of 9 confirms the county is not compensating with price growth either, and the trailing twelve months print negative 8.2% on home values. What the numbers describe is a market that currently delivers neither cash flow nor appreciation, sitting at the worst end of the cash-flow-versus-appreciation spectrum rather than at any productive point on it.

The affordability index of 96 and a median household income of $112,188 stand out as the one genuinely interesting data point here. Residents earn well above typical county medians nationally, and the affordability score near the top of the range suggests the local population is not priced out of ownership. That dynamic, however, cuts against rental demand. When households earn $112,188 and homes sit at $256,363, the natural tendency is ownership, not renting, which likely explains why the rental income model produces zeros. For a cash-flow buyer, there is no case to make. For an appreciation buyer, a negative 8.2% trailing price change and an appreciation score of 9 offer no support. A value-add operator needs a rental market to exit into, and the income data suggests that market is thin at best.

No economic anchors or employer data were provided for Glasscock County. What the population figure does communicate is context: 1,068 residents. This is one of the smallest counties in the United States by population, and that fact alone shapes every investment assumption. A single employer change, a single large employer exit, or a single shift in the energy sector, which dominates West Texas at this longitude, can move the entire county's rental demand materially. The income level of $112,188 median is consistent with oil-field employment concentration, and that sector is cyclical by nature. The model cannot price that risk directly, but an investor should.

On carry costs, the combined monthly tax and insurance burden comes to $491 on a $256,363 purchase, built from an annual property tax estimate of $4,615 and annual insurance of $1,282. The underlying tax rate is the state-average effective rate of 1.80%, flagged as high, and it deserves its own line on any underwrite. At 1.80%, the state-average rate is a genuine drag, and Texas has no income tax offset at the local level. That said, these are state-average estimates per Tax Foundation 2024 data, and actual Glasscock County or township rates may differ, so verify at the county appraisal district before finalizing any numbers. With a cap rate of zero, a $491 monthly carry cost before mortgage is not a speed bump, it is a wall. At a 6.85% interest rate on 80% LTV, the monthly mortgage alone on $256,363 would run approximately $1,344, meaning an investor is carrying well over $1,800 per month in fixed costs with no identified rental income to offset it.

The primary risks here are concentration and liquidity. A population of 1,068 means the buyer pool on exit is essentially zero in a downturn, and rental demand rests on a workforce that could relocate quickly if commodity prices shift. There is no demographic depth to absorb vacancy, and the falling home price trend suggests the market is already contracting. Regulatory risk is low in Texas generally, but that tailwind does nothing for a market with no rental income model to protect.

Compared to the listed neighbors, Glasscock County carries the highest median home price by a wide margin. Jim Wells County prices at $133,520, Starr County at $130,042, Baylor County at $119,420, and Garza County at $117,070, all with overall scores of 47 or 48, essentially identical to Glasscock's 47. An investor choosing among these markets gets similar overall scores at roughly half the capital outlay in any of the neighboring counties. Glasscock offers no yield advantage, no superior appreciation trajectory, and no score premium to justify its price premium. The only scenario where an investor chooses Glasscock over these neighbors is a highly specific thesis tied to a known local catalyst, such as a confirmed energy infrastructure project or a private employer commitment, that is not reflected in current data. Absent that, the capital efficiency argument points clearly elsewhere.