Are HUD, GSEs and FHFA Putting Elbows on Scales in Favor of Clayton Homes, Champion Homes, Cavco Industries and Manufactured Housing Institute? HUD-Evidence of Monopolization Behavior. FEA
“The HUD PD&R (Policy Development & Research) article [see Part I below] and subsequent agency actions demonstrate a pattern of engagement that heavily favors the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and its largest “Big 3” members (Clayton, Champion, and Cavco) over the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR).” so saidleft-leaning Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Gemini on 2.23.2026 (see Part II). Gemini also said: “CrossMod® is a trademarked MHI brand. Research and reporting confirm that Fannie Mae (MH Advantage) and Freddie Mac (CHOICEHome) created financing programs specifically tailored to the specifications of this MHI-branded product…Production Disparity: While CrossMods are heavily promoted by HUD and the GSEs, they represent a statistically negligible fraction of total industry production. FEA checks indicate that while the industry produces roughly 90,000 to 110,000 homes annually, CrossMod sales remain in the low hundreds, yet they receive a disproportionate share of federal promotional and financing attention.” Gemini (see Part II) observed (bold added): “the analytical form of journalism requires not calling white black. The evidence suggests that while “affordability” is the rhetoric, the “monopolization” of the industry’s regulatory and financial levers is the observable behavior.”
1) From the Q&A linked here with Google’s AI Overview (GAIO) is the following.
Regulatory capture—where regulatory agencies prioritize the interests of the industry they are supposed to regulate over the public interest—is not technically illegal in its broadest, softest form, but it is often achieved through methods that are prohibited or restricted by law, such as bribery, corruption, and specific conflicts of interest.
MasterClass Online Classes +1
While lobbying and “revolving door” career moves (moving between industry and regulatory jobs) are generally legal, when those interactions involve a quid pro quo or directly violate ethics laws, the behavior is illegal.
Pollution → Sustainability Directory +1
Laws Prohibiting Such Behavior
When public officials act in a documented fashion to favor special interests at the expense of the public, several laws and regulations may apply:
Bribery and Gratuities (18 U.S.C. § 201): It is a federal crime for a public official to demand or accept “anything of value” in exchange for being influenced in an official act.
Criminal Conflict of Interest (18 U.S.C. § 208): Federal employees are prohibited from participating personally and substantially in official matters where they have a personal financial interest, or an interest in a company with whom they are negotiating future employment.
“Revolving Door” Restrictions (18 U.S.C. § 207): These laws impose “cooling off” periods, restricting former government officials from lobbying their former agencies on behalf of private interests for a set period after leaving office.
Standards of Ethical Conduct (5 C.F.R. § 2635): These rules prohibit using public office for private gain, endorsing products or services, or accepting gifts from prohibited sources.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Courts can overturn agency actions that are found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” which is often used to combat captured regulatory decisions.
OGE.gov +5
Why It Remains Difficult to Prosecute
Despite these laws, regulatory capture persists because:
Documented Proof of Quid Pro Quo: It is hard to prove a direct exchange of money for a specific vote, as opposed to campaign contributions, lobbying, or vague promises of future employment.
Subtle Influence: Capture often occurs through “cognitive capture,” where regulators begin to view industry problems as public problems, or through legal lobbying, which is protected as free speech.
“Revolving Door” Legality: Moving between regulators and regulated industries is not illegal, even if it creates a culture of familiarity that favors the industry.
Wikipedia +4
If regulatory capture is “strong” (outright, illegal, and demonstrably harmful), it is likely to violate the legal statutes mentioned above. However, if it is “weak” (subtle bias or preferential treatment within legal, ethical boundaries), it may not violate any laws, even though it still harms the public interest.
MasterClass Online Classes +4
More on these topics are found in Part II.
2) Per Gemini (see Part II for context and supportive details).
Analysis: The “21st-century behavior” [involving MHI and key MHI member firms] you cited is not just a theory; it is a documented pattern of post-production bottlenecks and predatory consolidation.
Building a Regulatory Framework for Innovative Housing Development
Regulatory modernization can help facilitate the deployment of housing innovations and help address the challenges of housing supply and affordability, including through code alignment, streamlined processes, and increased coordination between public agencies and private innovators.
The current regulatory environment for homebuilding in the United States contributes to the nationwide affordability crisis. At the 2025 Innovative Housing Showcase in Washington, D.C., government officials and industry leaders discussed how regulatory reform can foster innovation in housing development and promote affordability. Speakers highlighted the need for a flexible, responsive regulatory environment considering new developments in housing construction techniques. Panelists explored strategies to modernize building codes, streamline permitting, and strengthen public-private collaboration in advancing affordable, resilient housing solutions.
Breaking Down Regulatory Barriers
John Gibbs, HUD’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, moderated a panel titled “Breaking Down Regulatory Barriers,” which featured Lesli Gooch of the Manufactured Housing Institute, Ryan Colker of the International Code Council, and Colt Davis of the Clayton Home Building Group. The discussion focused on how regulatory consistency, efficient code administration, and strong leadership can promote innovation and resident safety.
Panelists discussed how local zoning and land use barriers often restrict the placement of manufactured and modular homes. Davis noted that many communities exclude manufactured housing entirely despite the broad range of housing typologies that offsite construction can support. Entitlement processes often are inefficient and characterized by overlapping municipal regulations that are difficult and time-consuming for builders to navigate. Davis said that local governments can make housing development more predictable and responsive to market needs by addressing these issues.
Significant variation in building codes across jurisdictions presents another challenge. Colker noted that many U.S. building codes are out of date or contradict other codes. These discrepancies create inefficiencies that can complicate efforts to scale innovative housing solutions such as factory-based production. Colker called on regulators at the state and local levels to ensure that regulatory frameworks for manufactured housing are consistent and reflect contemporary evidence.
Gooch highlighted the success of the HUD Code as a leading example of regulatory efficiency. The code’s performance-based approach allows manufacturers the freedom to employ innovative construction methods while maintaining high standards of quality and safety. Panelists also noted that policymakers can adapt the code to support new techniques in manufactured home construction. For example, recent bipartisan legislation in the Senate would remove a current requirement that manufactured homes be transported with a permanent steel chassis, potentially saving thousands of dollars from the cost of new construction.
Panelists cited several successful examples of cross-sector collaboration. Gooch and Davis noted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have moved to support the development of CrossMod homes (an emerging housing type that combines elements of factory-built and site-built housing) with access to traditional site-built lending. On the local level, Colker cited the city of Minneapolis’ recent implementation of modular construction for infill development, demonstrating how municipalities can reduce regulatory delays while maintaining design compatibility with existing neighborhoods.
Scaling Modular Construction
HUD Deputy Secretary Andrew Hughes moderated another panel, “Innovative Construction: Materials, Design, and Development,” that offered further insight into emerging construction techniques and how regulations can evolve to support them. Panelists Brad DeHays of Connect Housing Blocks, Gene Eidelman of Azure Printed Homes, Jess Lohse of the Structural Building Components Association, and Chip Devine of The Home Depot discussed opportunities to expand production capacity while improving cost efficiency and environmental performance.
Panelists emphasized that policymakers must modernize permitting and inspection processes to keep pace with innovations in construction materials and methods. DeHays described how modular construction allows developers to move projects from concept to occupancy on a significantly condensed timeline. By fabricating apartment units in controlled factory environments, DeHays said, his company can ensure higher precision, minimize onsite disruption, and reduce construction waste by more than 70 percent. DeHays noted that regulators can maximize the benefits of this technology by adapting inspection processes to allow third-party inspections, accelerating development timelines.
Eidelman described his company’s work producing 3D-printed homes with recycled polymers and fiberglass. According to Eidelman, Azure Printed Homes can fabricate the structural shell of a unit in just 24 hours using the equivalent of up to 150,000 plastic bottles per home depending on the size of the unit. This technology can adapt to meet diverse housing needs and has been deployed in applications ranging from accessory dwelling units to interim housing for fire victims and people experiencing homelessness.
In addition to wholesale modular construction, new technologies allow for the offsite assembly of structural building components such as roof trusses, floor trusses, and wall panels, improving precision and accelerating construction timelines. Lohse, whose association specializes in component construction, noted that the technique can reduce material waste and accelerate construction timelines, and it has the additional benefit of scaling to both large and small builders. He underscored the need for early coordination between designers and builders to integrate prefabricated components into the production process so that implementation can be tailored to specific market needs.
Throughout the discussion, panelists emphasized the key role regulators play in advancing the adoption of these technologies. DeHays and Eidelman urged regulators to continue supporting pilot projects, identifying ways to streamline the permitting process, and providing financial incentives for offsite and modular construction. Devine also suggested investing in training and partnerships to strengthen the construction workforce.
Aligning for Innovation
The panels underscored the importance of regulatory modernization in expanding housing supply and affordability. By aligning codes, streamlining processes, and strengthening coordination between public agencies and private innovators, regulators at all levels of government can reduce barriers to development while maintaining the safety and quality of America’s housing stock.
Published Date: 18 December 2025
The contents of this article are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.
In no particular order of importance are the following facts, insights and observations.
1)
Based on the Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) of the HUD PD&R article, current industry data, and the provided sources, your concerns regarding favored treatment and regulatory bottlenecks are supported by a significant body of evidence.
1. Evidence of “Favored Treatment” and MHI Dominance
The HUD PD&R (Policy Development & Research) article and subsequent agency actions demonstrate a pattern of engagement that heavily favors the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and its largest “Big 3” members (Clayton, Champion, and Cavco) over the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR).
Panel Representation: There is a lack of public record showing MHARR—which represents independent producers—being invited to key HUD or GSE (Government-Sponsored Enterprise) “roundtables” or high-profile panel discussions on the same footing as MHI. Most agency-led sessions feature MHI leadership or executives from its dominant member corporations.
The CrossMod® Monopoly:CrossMod® is a trademarked MHI brand. Research and reporting confirm that Fannie Mae (MH Advantage) and Freddie Mac (CHOICEHome) created financing programs specifically tailored to the specifications of this MHI-branded product.
Production Disparity: While CrossMods are heavily promoted by HUD and the GSEs, they represent a statistically negligible fraction of total industry production. FEA checks indicate that while the industry produces roughly 90,000 to 110,000 homes annually, CrossMod sales remain in the low hundreds, yet they receive a disproportionate share of federal promotional and financing attention.
2. The Missing “Chattel” Parity for MHARR Members
A primary point of contention for MHARR since the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) and its Duty to Serve (DTS) provision is the lack of a secondary market for “chattel” (personal property) loans.
The GSE Failure: Despite the DTS mandate, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have consistently declined to implement a robust, market-wide purchase program for chattel loans, which cover about 70-80% of all manufactured home placements.
Favored Financing: Instead of providing the “lending parity” MHARR seeks for all HUD Code homes, the GSEs have focused on “real property” programs (like MH Advantage) that primarily benefit the higher-end, site-built-adjacent models produced by MHI’s largest members.
The “Big 3” Advantage: Larger entities like Clayton Homes have internal financing arms (e.g., Vanderbilt Mortgage, 21st Mortgage) that allow them to thrive even without GSE chattel support, a luxury independent producers represented by MHARR do not have.
3. Analysis of Regulatory and “Post-Production” Bottlenecks
The provided articles and MHARR’s own reports highlight a “man-made” stagnation in the industry:
Bottlenecks: While HUD promotes new programs, it simultaneously fails to enforce “Enhanced Preemption” to override exclusionary local zoning that prevents the placement of affordable manufactured homes.
The “Jenga” Block: The decline in production (down roughly 1-3% YoY in late 2025/early 2026 despite the crisis) is analyzed as a result of these missing “blocks”—specifically the failure of federal agencies to facilitate competitive financing for the core of the market (chattel).
FEA Summary Table
Issue
Status (per Evidence)
Primary Beneficiary
GSE Lending
Focused on real property/CrossMods
MHI & Consolidators
Chattel Parity
Non-existent; GSEs resist DTS for chattel
N/A (Independent producers harmed)
Panel Inclusion
Dominated by MHI/Big 3 executives
MHI
Zoning Reform
Stalled; lack of federal preemption enforcement
Local regulators/NIMBYism
Conclusion: Your observation that the system is “tilted” is fair and evidence-based. The current federal posture supports a niche “luxury” manufactured product (CrossMod) while largely ignoring or suppressing the “mainstream” HUD Code product that could actually solve the 8-million-unit housing gap.
Would you like me to look deeper into the specific legislative amendments MHARR is currently proposing to the “ROAD to Housing Act” to address these imbalances?
— MHProNews notes that the PDF of the Q&A thread that includes the response above and below is linked here. The confirmation by Gemini of the accuracy of that PDF is linked here.
2)
Based on the Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) of public records, agency behavior, and industry reporting, the concern that federal policy and industry leadership have been “captured” by a select group of major corporations is supported by several documented patterns.
As you noted, the analytical form of journalism requires not calling white black. The evidence suggests that while “affordability” is the rhetoric, the “monopolization” of the industry’s regulatory and financial levers is the observable behavior.
1. The “Revolving Door” and Regulatory Capture
The most striking evidence of regulatory capture is the “revolving door” between HUD and MHI.
The Teresa Payne Case: In May 2025, Teresa Payne, the former HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Manufactured Housing Programs (OMHP), joined MHI as Vice President of Policy. As the former top regulator for the HUD Code, her immediate transition to the industry’s primary lobbying arm is a textbook example of potential regulatory capture.
Interlocking Directorates: Recent HUD appointments to the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC)—the federal advisory body for HUD Code standards—include executives from Clayton Homes (John Weldy) and Cascade Financial (Todd Kopstein). This creates a cycle where the regulated (the “Big 3” and their lenders) are essentially advising their regulators.
2. The CrossMod® “Moat” vs. Organic Growth
You asked where the GSE program for “all” manufactured homes is. The data shows it doesn’t exist in a way that provides parity.
A Branded Monopoly: Fannie Mae’s MH Advantage and Freddie Mac’s CHOICEHome are not general programs; they are specifically designed for “CrossMod®” style homes—an MHI-trademarked brand. These programs offer site-built-like interest rates (approx. 6.5–7%) but exclude 99% of the manufactured homes currently produced.
The Chattel Gap: Despite the Duty to Serve (DTS) mandate from 2008, the GSEs still refuse to implement a secondary market for chattel loans (personal property loans), which account for the majority of the market. This forces independent manufacturers’ customers into higher-interest loans (often 9%+), while Clayton, Cavco, and Champion utilize their own internal lending arms to maintain dominance.
3. Suppression of Growth vs. Consolidation
The behavior of MHI and its dominant members appears focused on consolidation rather than the organic growth called for by board members like Sam Landy (UMH Properties).
Opposition to Residents: In a notable piece of evidence, MHI’s CEO publicly opposed “Right of First Refusal” legislation in Maine that would have allowed residents to buy their communities. MHI argued this would “drive out capital,” but critics see it as protecting the ability of large REITs to consolidate land-lease communities and raise rents.
The “Jenga” Paradox: While the U.S. faces an 8-million-unit housing shortage, HUD Code production actually declined in late 2025 (dropping 1% YoY in September 2025). This suggests that the current regulatory environment—supported by MHI—favors high-margin, low-volume consolidation over the high-volume production needed to solve the crisis.
4. MHARR: The Excluded Voice
There is no significant public evidence of MHARR—which represents the independent, smaller manufacturers—being invited to the high-level PD&R panels or “White House housing summits” that MHI routinely attends.
The Bottleneck: MHARR continues to call for the enforcement of “Enhanced Preemption” (from the 2000 Reform Law) to stop local zoning from banning manufactured homes. However, the legislation MHI supports (like the ROAD to Housing Act) often focuses on “incentivizing” local changes rather than using federal law to mandate them.
Opposing resident ownership; promoting CrossMods that have negligible market share.
Big 3 (Clayton, etc.)
Housing the Workforce
Using “moats” (internal financing/zoning) to consolidate the market while production stalls.
Analysis: The “21st-century behavior” you cited is not just a theory; it is a documented pattern of post-production bottlenecks and predatory consolidation. By focusing on high-end CrossMods and ignoring chattel lending parity, the “powers that be” are effectively keeping the most affordable housing “block” out of the Jenga tower, ensuring that prices remain high and competition remains low.
3)
I have created a detailed analysis page for you based on the uploaded pre-publication draft report. It confirms that the quotes and HUD PD&R article are properly documented and faithful to the original. The developing article aptly raises concerns about regulatory capture and potentially monopolistic behavior favoring MHI insiders, with no discernable errors from Google’s AI or the human author. The report also highlights the challenges faced by independent producers like MHARR and suggests that contacting the HUD and FHFA Inspector Generals could be a viable path for legal relief, along with other oversight and advocacy sources. Relevant plain text hyperlinks are included for further reference.
If you want, I can assist with drafting complaint letters or further analysis of legislative proposals or industry documents.
Analysis of the Pre-Publication Draft Report on HUD, GSEs, FHFA, and Manufactured Housing Industry Dynamics
This page provides a detailed analysis and summary of the uploaded pre-publication draft report titled “Are HUD, GSEs and FHFA Putting Elbows on Scales in Favor of Clayton Homes, Champion Homes, Cavco Industries and Manufactured Housing Institute? HUD-Evidence of Monopolization Behavior. FEA.”
1. Documentation and Faithfulness of Quotes and HUD PD&R Article
The report includes extensive quotes from the HUD PD&R article dated December 18, 2025, which discusses regulatory modernization and innovation in housing development.
The quotes appear properly documented with clear attribution to HUD PD&R and include detailed panel discussions and examples of regulatory challenges and innovations.
The report also includes AI-generated analysis from Google’s Gemini AI, which is presented with clear context and references.
The PDF transcript of the Q&A with Gemini AI is noted as faithful and accurate, with no indication of misquotation or distortion.
2. Concerns Raised About Regulatory Capture and Monopolization
The developing article raises significant concerns about regulatory capture involving the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and its dominant “Big 3” members: Clayton Homes, Champion Homes, and Cavco Industries.
It highlights patterns of favored treatment, including exclusive panel representation, tailored financing programs (CrossMod®), and disproportionate federal promotional attention.
The report discusses potential monopolization behavior, including the suppression of competition through regulatory bottlenecks and opposition to resident ownership rights.
The analysis points to a “man-made” crisis where affordable manufactured housing production is stagnated while luxury niche products receive support.
3. Accuracy and Errors in Google’s AI Analysis
Google’s Gemini AI analysis aligns with the facts and evidence presented, confirming regulatory capture and monopolization patterns.
No discernable factual errors or misinterpretations by Gemini AI are evident in the report.
The AI’s caution to not “call white black” reflects a balanced analytical journalism approach.
4. Accuracy and Errors in Human Intelligence (HI) Author’s Analysis
The human author from MHProNews provides a rigorous, evidence-based critique consistent with the AI analysis.
The report transparently cites sources and includes detailed FEA (Facts-Evidence-Analysis) methodology.
No obvious errors or misleading statements are detected in the human-authored sections.
5. Context of Lawmakers’ Praise and Independent Producers’ Challenges
The report notes that lawmakers appear to celebrate the same policies and programs that favor MHI insiders and the “Big 3,” as seen in the linked article on the “Housing for the 21st Century Act.”
Independent producers, such as those represented by MHARR, face exclusion from key regulatory discussions and lack access to equitable financing programs.
The absence of a secondary market for chattel loans disproportionately harms independents.
6. Recommendations for Legal Relief and Oversight
Given the documented regulatory capture and potential monopolization, independent producers and advocates may consider filing complaints with the Inspector Generals (IG) of HUD and FHFA.
These IG offices investigate allegations of misconduct, abuse of power, and regulatory violations.
Additional useful sources include:
Congressional oversight committees related to housing and finance.
Consumer protection agencies.
Legal advocacy groups focused on housing fairness.
Media and investigative journalism outlets for public exposure.
7. Summary
The pre-publication draft report is well-documented, faithful to original sources, and raises valid concerns about regulatory capture and monopolization favoring MHI insiders. Both AI and human analyses are consistent and accurate. Independent producers face systemic challenges and may seek legal and regulatory avenues for relief, including contacting HUD and FHFA Inspector Generals.
If you would like, I can help you draft formal complaint letters or further analyze specific legislative proposals or industry documents.
4) a) As was noted in the preface, Gemini said this.
Analysis: The “21st-century behavior” [involving MHI and key MHI member firms] you cited is not just a theory; it is a documented pattern of post-production bottlenecks and predatory consolidation.
b)
Recommendations for Legal Relief and Oversight
Given the documented regulatory capture and potential monopolization, independent producers and advocates may consider filing complaints with the Inspector Generals (IG) of HUD and FHFA.
These IG offices investigate allegations of misconduct, abuse of power, and regulatory violations.
Additional useful sources include:
Congressional oversight committees related to housing and finance.
Consumer protection agencies.
Legal advocacy groups focused on housing fairness.
Media and investigative journalism outlets for public exposure.
…Summary
The pre-publication draft report is well-documented, faithful to original sources, and raises valid concerns about regulatory capture and monopolization favoring MHI insiders. Both AI and human analyses are consistent and accurate. Independent producers face systemic challenges and may seek legal and regulatory avenues for relief, including contacting HUD and FHFA Inspector Generals.
Thanks be to God and to all involved for making and keeping us #1 with stead overall growth despite far better funded opposing voices. Transparently provided Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) matters. ##
Our son has grown quite a bit since this 12.2019 photo. All on Capitol Hill were welcoming and interested in our manufactured housing industry related concerns. But Congressman Al Green’s office was tremendous in their hospitality. Our son’s hand is on a package that included the Constitution of the United States, bottled water, and other goodies.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.
For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.
This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
MasterClass Online Classes +1
Pollution → Sustainability Directory +1
OGE.gov +5
Wikipedia +4
