Pine Bluff, AR

Pine Bluff, AR, has a population of 72,255, and the record offers current marketwide observations from several sources rather than a complete rent trend. This report is intentionally unranked because Zillow does not publish enough history to calculate a trailing-12-month rent change. The 12-month rent change is unavailable, so the report does not assign a score or rank. That limitation is decisive for any comparison based on rent momentum, but it does not erase the direct evidence on current asking rent, values, income, market conditions, migration, mortgage occupancy and risk. The decision frame is therefore evidentiary: separate what each series measures, preserve its period and scope, and identify unresolved questions before treating the market as a renter, landlord or small-investor decision.

At Zillow’s 2026-06-30 reading, the asking-rent measure is $863 and the home-value measure is $103,165. Zillow reports home-value change of 0.0164 and a gross-yield metric of 0.1004. These figures create a usable current rent/value snapshot: the rent measure is paired with a value measure, and the supplied gross-yield figure records that relationship. They do not establish rent growth, because Zillow’s required trailing-12-month rent change is unavailable. Nor do Zillow’s asking-rent and home-value indexes reveal operating costs, lease concessions, vacancy, financing terms or realized sale outcomes. The value change is therefore distinct from the unavailable rent change, and the gross-yield figure is distinct from a net operating result.

Census ACS places median household income at $51,605, with a rent-to-income measure of 0.2006 and a price-to-income measure of 2.0. Those Census measures describe an income boundary, not the experience of every household or tenure type. HUD’s FY2026 two-bedroom Fair Market Rent is $908.5, while the supplied Zillow rent-versus-FMR measure is 0.95. HUD Fair Market Rent is a program benchmark for a two-bedroom unit, whereas Zillow is an asking-rent index; the two series are useful together but are not interchangeable. The rent measure being below the HUD benchmark does not, by itself, prove broad affordability, because the Census income statistic, HUD benchmark and Zillow asking-rent measure have different populations, purposes and coverage.

The supply and transaction record is mixed rather than uniform. BLS LAUS reports metro labor change of -0.004 for the 12 months through 2026-05. Census Building Permits reports 46 total permits through M06, 0.64 permits per 1,000 residents, and zero permits in the supplied larger-structure category. Permits are a measure of newly permitted housing supply, not a measure of completed or occupied homes. Redfin, dated 2026-05-01, shows 5.8 months of supply versus 6.0 previously, yet median days on market are 90 versus 47 previously. Its sale-to-list measure is 0.9584, and the price-drop share is 0.257 versus 0.2353 previously. Slightly lower listed supply sits alongside longer market time and a larger price-drop share. BLS, Census Building Permits and Redfin therefore describe separate labor, construction and resale-market conditions whose stated periods should not be collapsed into one directional conclusion.

IRS migration evidence records 1,265 moved-in tax returns and 1,502 moved-out tax returns, for supplied net migration of -237. The incoming AGI figure is $36,821, the outgoing AGI figure is $42,582, and the supplied AGI gap is -$5,761. These IRS figures distinguish tax-return migration from housing purchases and do not identify whether movers rented, bought, or made no local housing-market transaction. HMDA adds a different lens: its 2024 purchase-mortgage occupancy evidence records 485 total purchases, 89 investor purchases, and an investor share of 0.1835. HMDA’s investor share identifies a segment within reported purchase mortgages; it is not the same measure as IRS movers and does not establish how all market participants occupy housing. The tension is that migration, income movement and investor purchase activity answer different demand questions, none of which replaces the unavailable Zillow rent history.

FEMA’s National Risk Index contributes expected annual loss evidence, not a rent or value forecast. The supplied climate loss ratio is 0.001615, the National Risk Index score is 77.4, and the top listed hazard is inland flood in the water category. These FEMA measures establish a market-level risk context that should remain analytically separate from Zillow’s current asking rent and home-value indexes, HUD’s Fair Market Rent, or Redfin’s resale conditions. The packet provides cost-level reference points through Zillow’s $863 asking-rent measure, Zillow’s $103,165 home-value measure and HUD’s $908.5 benchmark, but it supplies no separate insurance, tax, repair or mitigation cost series. FEMA evidence therefore does not demonstrate a specific financial effect on rents, values, household budgets or transaction outcomes.

The practical synthesis is a list of questions, not a market call. A decision file can first resolve the missing Zillow rent-history issue, because current rent of $863 cannot show trailing rent momentum without the unavailable 12-month change. It can then keep the Census ACS income boundary and HUD two-bedroom benchmark distinct from Zillow asking rent; align the BLS, Census Building Permits and Redfin observations by their stated periods; and separate IRS tax-return migration from HMDA purchase-mortgage occupancy evidence. Finally, FEMA inland-flood risk can be reviewed alongside separate cost documentation rather than assumed to be reflected in any listed price or rent measure. The evidence supports investigation of definitions, timing and missing cost data; it does not support a score, rank, forecast, neighborhood conclusion, property-level conclusion or a renter, landlord or investor recommendation.