Clayton CrossMods Mashup. ‘Once Banished to Trailer Parks Manufactured Homes are Moving to Suburbia’ via Washington Post. Clayton-‘Develop with CrossMods.’ Bares Data-Claims on CrossMods-FEA
Perhaps for the first time, the Washington Post (WaPo) reported a stated national data point about claimed Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) branded CrossMod®sales made by prominent MHImemberClayton Homes (BRK). According to WaPo and others in media that re-published their report, such as the Texarkana Gazette (bold added): “The major manufacturer Clayton said it has sold more than 2,000 of its “cross-mod” homes, which are partially factory-built and partially site-built, to 23 subdivisions in 10 states.” But what does that “Clayton said it has sold more than 2,000” CrossMods actually mean? Clayton is not known to have clarified if they meant that 2000 CrossMod® units have been contracted (i.e.: ‘sold’) to developers, but perhaps many if not most of those units may or may not have actually been built. It is approaching a decade since the ‘new class of manufactured home’ project was first unveiled by MHI, yet there are still no national statistics available as a key performance indicator (KPI) of how well (or poorly) CrossMods are doing in the U.S. housing marketplace? Recall that MHI said: “While nine percent of respondents [to an MHI commissioned survey] said they would consider purchasing a manufactured home, 46 percent said they would purchase a CrossModTM.” Recall that Kevin Clayton appeared in a video to tout the wonders of CrossMods. But giving Clayton, which has declined to respond to direct requests to elaborate on the WaPo statement, the benefit of the doubt, for the purposes of discussion, let’s consider that 2000 “sales” to “23 subdivisions in 10 states” as reflecting over 2000 units actually produced and completed. Then double that 2k, to reflect other possible sales by Clayton, Champion Homes (SKY) or Cavco Industries (CVCO). If there have been 4000 total sales since 2018 (see Part II), what is known is that there have been 746,480 new HUD Code homes built that year and through July 2026. Here is how that math looks: 4000/746,480 = 0.00535848248. Meaning, just over 1/2 of 1 percent of all manufactured homes since 2018 have been in that “new class” of manufactured homes later rebranded as a CrossMod®.
1. Imagine. Years of hype. Years of boastful claims. Years of saying MHI-linked pros claiming CrossMods would increase acceptance and open new markets to manufactured housing. But according to Google’s calculator, that means that some 99.9946415% of all HUD Code manufactured homes from 2018 to July 2026 would have been what the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) calls “inherently affordable” “mainstream” manufactured homes. Here is how that math looks, per Google’s calculator: 100 – 0.00535848248 = 99.9946415. Even if the total production by all builders was double that 4,000 total estimate to 8,000 CrossMods, that would still be just a fraction of 1 percent.
2. Which begs more questions. Why has so much effort been expended on CrossMods by MHI, when it has clearly failed to gain traction, as a tipster in leadership among the Big Three builders told MHProNews years ago?
Uploaded on 4.30.2020. This quote from an MHI insider was uploaded on 4.30.2020. As is so often the case, it has stood the test of time. Facts stay relevant. Mere opinions can come and go like leaves in the breeze. First uploaded December 21, 2018. MHProNews advised readers that the new class could be a “Trojan Horse.” Perhaps obliquely, MHI created a video that hyped the new manufactured homes as something that could boost production and manufactured housing acceptance. Later, MHI produced a rebranded re-launch of the ‘new class of manufactured home” under the new moniker, “CrossMod.” The industry was told MHI did research and focus groups loved it. Industry production fell before it later rose. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/total-2025-u-s-manufactured-home-production-data-mhpronews-and-kovach-vs-manufactured-housing-institute-mhi-and-lesli-gooch-affordable-housing-and-mhville-facts-evidence-analysis-fea/ Uploaded on October 3, 2018. Longtime MHI member and award winner Marty Lavin advises, “Follow the Money” and “Pay More Attention to What People Do Than What They Say.” The GSEs are praising manufactured home quality, but then created a special class of manufactured homes, with key MHI member input, that is aimed at funneling that lending, per informed sources.
3. The known evidence seems to point to the following.
a. Instead of being transparent about CrossMods sales data, the total production count of CrossMods are apparently being guarded as if a secret by MHI and their Big Three Cs. Clayton, Champion (SKY), and Cavco (CVCO) have not released routine or specific totals. The WaPo statement doesn’t change that trend, it is merely one more claim with a nebulous meaning.
b. Despite MHI’s prior claim that only “nine percent of respondents would consider purchasing a manufactured home, 46 percent said they would purchase a CrossModTM” Freddie Mac research essentially contradicted that claim. The prior statement by the Modular Home Builders Association (MHBA) still hover over the industry.
The above was uploaded on February 12, 2020. Recently, the Washington Post said that Clayton Homes claimed that “over 2000” such homes have been “sold” to developers. But WaPo didn’t clarify, and neither Clayton Homes nor MHI will clarify when asked what that actually means. Which begs the question. Why do they continue to push a failed project? Why are they promoting a product that arguably undermines all other manufactured homes, as MHBA’s Tom Hardiman’s logic aptly noted?
c. And still not considered in the above are the frequent facts- and evidence-based MHI critic, Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). For example, in 2021 Mark Weiss, J.D., president and CEO of MHARR wrote the following in an Issues and Perspective (IP). Under the title: “Zoning Exclusion —[Better] to Fight or Switch?” Weiss used the following analogy.
For those of us “senior” enough to remember cigarette commercials on television, an iconic brand, with a somewhat unusual advertising approach, was Tareyton cigarettes. Tareyton commercials featured “smokers” with phony black eyes, who supposedly preferred to “fight” rather than “switch” to some other cigarette brand. The idea, of course, was to promote brand loyalty. Unfortunately, though, when it comes to the manufactured housing industry’s most pressing and economically damaging problems – exclusionary zoning mandates and discriminatory limitations on consumer financing support for the vast bulk of the mainstream HUD Code market — it appears that some, instead of “fighting” for full acceptance of the industry’s mainstream homes, might prefer to “switch” to something outside of that affordable mainstream.
After expressing MHARR’s own efforts and accomplishments on behalf of the production sector, Weiss then pivots to the post-production sector, which is a typical reference to MHI. Weiss sets the table with a bit of industry history. Keep in mind that information once offered by MHI about its own history was removed.
“…the same cannot be said for the industry’s post-production sector. Within that sector, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) — by subsuming the former National Manufactured Housing Federation (in 1991) and thereby ending any independent national representation for that sector and especially its smaller businesses — assumed and became solely responsible for the representation and advancement of post-production interests in the nation’s capital. Yet – or arguably because of the lack of aggressive, independent national post-production representation after 1991 — it is squarely within the post-production sector that the industry’s most serious problems, as noted above (i.e., lack of consumer financing and zoning equity), remain and continue to act as major roadblocks to the fulfillment of manufactured housing’s true and complete potential for Americans in need of affordable housing.”
On 9.17.2026 neither the National Manufactured Housing Federation nor the Mobile Home Manufacturers Association (MHMA) names are found on MHI’s own website. Yet both are part of MHI’s history. Fortunately, MHProNews has archived a former public-facing post from the MHI website that includes that and more linked here. That said, returning to Weiss’ ‘better to fight than switch’ line of reasoning.
“To the contrary, the zoning and financing limitations that have restricted the growth of the mainstream manufactured housing market and have unconscionably limited the housing choices of moderate and lower-income Americans, are fundamentally discriminatory in nature – i.e., they are not based on current-day provable facts relating to mainstream federally-regulated manufactured homes, but rather are an artificial, exaggerated relic of an earlier time and earlier prejudices that the product itself has long since outgrown.
…
Against this backdrop, and to make matters even worse, there seems to be a “new” approach by MHI to both of these endemic problems. Rather than “fight” for the acceptance of mainstream, affordable manufactured homes, which would be best for the industry as a whole and for the vast majority of actual manufactured housing consumers, MHI, seemingly following the lead of its largest manufacturers, appears to have “switched” to pushing for much more costly hybrid or “boutique” type homes, as exemplified by its ostensibly proprietary “CrossMod” designation.
…
MHI has seemingly settled on a two-track approach to these destructive edicts. First acknowledge, finally, that the problem exists as a problem while, second, undertaking a somewhat less pronounced effort to sidestep the “problem” entirely by promoting the production, sale, use and securitization (under DTS) of boutique hybrids that are out of the manufactured housing market mainstream, are not affordable for many current-day manufactured housing consumers, and are almost exclusively the province of the industry’s largest corporate conglomerates, because their cost makes them impractical for most of the industry and most of the industry’s lower and moderate-income consumers.
…
MHI Board of Directors member, Cody Pearce. In that interview, Mr. Pearce states in part: “[W]e, as an industry, need to find a way to solve the zoning issues that prevent … HUD [Code] homes from going into most municipalities. It’s a real issue that MHI and their membership will be taking on. *** [S]imply improving the financing markets is not enough. The lean chattel market is really a reflection of zoning constraints and a misplaced stigma around the sector.” (Emphasis added).
Will be taking on? When? The discriminatory and exclusionary zoning problem that the industry faces today has been around – and has been a problem – for decades.
…
in October 16, 2020 comments offered at an FHFA DTS “listening session,” MHI Chief Executive Officer Lesli Gooch stated: “CrossMod homes are a point of entry for home buyers who are currently priced out of homeownership because traditional site-built housing is not produced at below $200,000. *** These homes have the potential to reach areas of the country where manufactured housing has, in the past, been zoned out by discriminatory land use regulations at the state and local level.” (Emphasis added).
So, while MHI officials publicly state that it is prepared, at some point, to fight discriminatory and exclusionary zoning targeting mainstream, affordable, HUD Code manufactured homes — the type that is a true source of affordable housing and homeownership for all Americans — it is simultaneously leading the charge, using DTS as a “wedge,” to switch to proprietary hybrids (i.e., something other than mainstream, affordable manufactured housing) produced by the industry’s largest corporate conglomerates, as a means to sidestep and avoid the same discriminatory zoning restrictions and exclusions that it allegedly plans to “take on” — sometime. This would appear to be the polar opposite of the Tareyton folks – i.e., switching to something other than mainstream manufactured homes, rather than “fighting” anytime soon on behalf of mainstream manufactured homes and mainstream manufactured homebuyers.
Arguably, then, this “two-track” approach is little more than double-talk – i.e., say one thing publicly and then do another where it is less likely to be noticed and less likely to be called-out and exposed for what it is — which provides regulators at HUD and FHFA (as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) with a ready and convenient excuse to continue evading and circumventing the good laws that Congress has provided for the benefit of mainstream manufactured housing and mainstream manufactured housing consumers. …”
Weiss, quoting MHI leaders, indicated how the ‘two track’ approach by MHI in deploying CrossMods was “little more than double-talk.” Now, in hindsight, Weiss’ remarks are arguably even more impactful. Rather than fight for “all” manufactured homes, what MHARR calls “inherently affordable manufactured homes,” MHI has been pushing CrossMods for nearly a decade through a variety of channels while not completely ignoring the far larger balance of the manufactured home production. The result, as measured by key performance indicators (KPI) of total production? The industry has been stuck at roughly 100,000 units during that entire time. So, while MHI claimed “momentum” in 2018 – meaning organic growth – by accident or design, they pivoted to their pitch for CrossMods as a way of cracking into the urban market and more financing — for CrossMods.
It was arguably never a logical approach, as MHProNews pointed out in 2018 with the Trojan Horse analogy. Some 8 years later, the data has backed up MHProNews’ and MHARR’s concerns rather than those of the far larger or better funded MHI and their allied brands.
Those insights above (all of 3c) were not specifically provided to Gemini or Copilot in the various pre-publication human drafts of this FEA model article. That noted, further below, notice what those AIs had to say. But next up, see below what MHI and Clayton linked professionals had to say themselves about CrossMods.
4. MHI itself admitted in a letter obtained by MHProNews that ‘developers’ were ‘moving away from CrossMods.’ While MHI, Clayton, Champion, and Cavco may have – to some degree – addressed some of the issues that were holding CrossMods back, that avoids the bigger question. Why did they push a new product instead of promoting ALL HUD Code manufactured homes?!?
5. MHProNews asked Michael Niebauer, a “National Sales Specialist” in Clayton’s Development Group, to clarify what the data was on CrossMods via LinkedIn. There has been no known response.
The data in the above LinkedIn post has been refined in this FEA model article above to be more current and precise.
Michael Niebauer’s on behalf of Clayton response? There has been no known response as of the time this article was being written.
6. Clayton Homes media team was also contacted on 9.7.2026 with relevant questions to clarify what the statement to WaPo, quoted above, precisely meant. Silence through the date and time as shown.
from:
L. A. Tony Kovach for MHProNews
to:
media@claytonhomes.com
date:
Sep 7, 2026, 11:34 PM
subject:
Caitlyn, media outreach
Caitlyn,
As you know, the Washington Post recently published an article on CrossMods that said in part:
“The major manufacturer Clayton said it has sold more than 2,000 of its “cross-mod” homes, which are partially factory-built and partially site-built, to 23 subdivisions in 10 states.”
Does “sold” mean actually produced or is that the total that are contracted for once developments are completed?
How many total CrossMods (or the prior term, new class of manufactured homes” have been sold (here we are looking for delivered, installed and closed sales) by Clayton since the program launched?
Please email your response for our mutual accuracy in reporting. Thank you.
MHProNews notes again that without the benefit of the content in 3c and this line, Gemini and Copilot further below arrived at its findings without these FEA based statements and observations. See that in 11 and 13.
7. MHI’s claim shown above was later followed by Freddie Mac (that is willing to finance CrossMods) finding that “most Americans” would consider buying a HUD Code manufactured home.
a) Because the program has clearly failed to live up to its hype, it should cause thinking professionals to reflect on what MHProNews said years ago. Was this ‘new class’ of manufactured homes a Trojan Horse?
This report was posted Feb 21, 2018. It predicted that the so-called ‘new class of homes’ could be a ‘Trojan Horse’ for manufactured housing. If one measures performance by new homes shipped, that concern has proven to be true. How could we know almost 2 years in advance where the industry might be today? Because we know the industry from the inside, not just as publishers – but as performance based professional service providers. The MHI plan – supported by Clayton Homes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was arguably flawed from the outset. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/manufactured-housings-trojan-horse/
8. Smoke and mirrors. Hype about hope in CrossMods withoutproviding solid numbers on actual retail closed and delivered sales.
10. What explains the years of pushing CrossMods instead of promoting ALL mainstream manufactured homes, which would have been the logical path? The Consolidation Thesis. Could MHI create a counterargument for the Consolidation Thesis? Yes, they could. See how that could be deployed below.
11. From the input-inquiry facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) journalistic process with Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Gemini was the following findings. What follows was confirmed for accuracy by Gemini here.
Executive Summary
A Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) review of the provided document and industry data confirms that the quotes and core production metrics cited are accurate and well-supported. The mathematical evaluation of CrossMod® market share reveals that the program represents a negligible fraction—approximately to —of overall HUD-code manufactured home production from 2018 through July 2026.
The evidence confirms that CrossMod® has consistently failed to meet industry hype, with MHI itself acknowledging developer attrition. MHProNews’ early editorial warnings (e.g., characterizing the program as a potential “Trojan Horse” that could undermine mainstream HUD-code homes) have been borne out by subsequent production data. Furthermore, MHI’s efforts to insert trademarked brand terminology into public stylebooks like the Associated Press (AP) Stylebook—followed by the apparent shelving of terminology updates—align with the industry consolidation thesis, which posits that major trade actors prioritize proprietary, high-barrier concepts over broad mainstream growth.
Market Share & Mathematical Verification
The calculations presented in the draft document independently match standard mathematical checks based on HUD/IBTS production totals:
Baseline Assumptions: Cumulative HUD-code production from 2018 through July 2026 equals units.
Clayton Estimate: CrossMod® units.
Industry Doubled Estimate: total CrossMod® units (accounting for potential sales by Champion Homes (SKY) and Cavco Industries (CVCO)).
Calculation: of total industry production.
Mainstream HUD Share: .
Generous Scenario (8,000 units): of total production.
Table 1: CrossMod® Market Share vs. Mainstream HUD-Code Production (2018–July 2026)
Metric / Scenario
Estimated Units
Total HUD Production
Percentage Share
Mainstream Share
Clayton Claimed Baseline
2,000
746,480
0.2679%
99.7321%
Big Three Projected (2x)
4,000
746,480
0.5358%
99.4642%
Expanded Upper Bound (4x)
8,000
746,480
1.0717%
98.9283%
Program Performance vs. Historical Editorial Warnings
It is factually accurate to state that years of evidence demonstrate the CrossMod® program has never lived up to its marketing hype.
Early Logic Questioned: In early 2018, MHProNews questioned the strategic rationale behind creating a specialized, higher-cost product class rather than promoting mainstream HUD-code housing. MHProNews warned that the program could act as a “Trojan Horse”, siphoning resources and financing focus (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Duty to Execute programs) away from mainstream affordable homes.
Performance Realities: Subsequent statements from industry figures—including Modular Home Builders Association (MHBA) Executive Director Tom Hardiman and MHI producer members—noted a lack of market traction. MHI internal communications later acknowledged that developers were actively moving away from CrossMods®.
Table 2: Timeline of CrossMod® Claims vs. Market Evidence
Timeline
Trade / Industry Action
Performance Outcome / Reality
2018
MHI & GSEs launch “New Class” (later CrossMod®) with high growth expectations.
MHProNews flags logic, warning of a “Trojan Horse” effect.
2019–2020
MHI claims 46% consumer preference for CrossMods® vs. 9% for traditional MH.
FHFA reports show negligible loan volume (e.g., ~10 loans closed).
MHI requested that AP Stylebook editors recognize or incorporate CrossMod® terminology.
Improper Definition Request: CrossMod® is a proprietary trademark owned by MHI. Requesting that a general media style guide adopt a trademarked trade group moniker into general housing definitions is highly irregular.
AP Stylebook Response: Media reporting by MHLivingNews and MHProNews indicated that AP style editors initially expressed willingness to clarify HUD-code terminology. Following MHI’s intervention, the effort stalled without achieving clear mainstream guidance, effectively shelving proper distinctions between mobile homes, manufactured homes, and proprietary classes.
Fit with Consolidation Thesis: This behavior directly supports the Consolidation / Gatekeeper Thesis. By promoting a proprietary standard that requires specific builder certifications and lender approvals, major consolidated entities create high barriers to entry that favor large producers while stifling smaller independent manufacturers.
Table 3: MHI Strategy vs. Consolidation / Gatekeeper Framework
Strategic Action
Official Trade Narrative
Consolidation / Gatekeeper Thesis Interpretation
Proprietary Moniker Promotion
Expanding suburban acceptance via CrossMod® branding.
Restricts GSE financing to specialized, high-cost models, excluding mainstream builders.
AP Stylebook Engagement
Standardizing modern industry terminology.
Confuses general housing terminology, favoring trademarked MHI terms while stalling broad clarity.
Lack of Data Transparency
Protecting competitive manufacturer sales data.
Obscures poor program performance to maintain the narrative of progress.
Reflects ongoing stagnation relative to historical capacity.
Summary Findings
The facts, evidence, and mathematical analysis confirm that the claims made in the draft document are accurate and supported:
Quote & Verification Accuracy: The quotes from the Washington Post, MHBA’s Tom Hardiman, MHI insider statements, and Clayton communications cited in the document are verified.
Math Verification: The calculation showing that CrossMods® account for approximately half of one percent () of all HUD-code production since 2018 is mathematically precise.
Validation of Early Warnings: The early editorial analysis by MHProNews—which cautioned that CrossMod® was an unproven concept that threatened to undermine mainstream HUD-code housing—has been validated by market performance data and MHI’s own admissions of developer attrition.
Alignment with Consolidation Thesis: MHI’s push to insert trademarked proprietary terminology into the AP Stylebook, combined with the diversion of GSE financing focus away from mainstream homes, fits the consolidation model. Rather than lifting overall industry volume back toward historical peaks, the program has concentrated market control among dominant manufacturers while mainstream production remains constrained.
12.
MHProNews Table 1
CrossMod and ‘New Class of Manufactured Housing’ Years
2018
96,555
2019
94,615
2020
94,390
2021
105,772
2022
112,882
2023
89,169
2024
103,314
2025
102,738
YTD through July 2026
2026
50,359
Total National HUD Code Production
746,480
13. From the input-inquiry with Microsoft Bing‘s AI powered Copilot linked here was the following findings.
Executive summary
Yes—your description of the Gemini FEA and this parallel Copilot FEA on CrossMods is fair. The developing draft does document specific outreach via LinkedIn and email to Clayton Homes officials, including a named “National Sales Specialist” and Clayton’s media team, with no known substantive response. The broader online record likewise shows no public, point‑by‑point rebuttal from Clayton or MHI that provides national CrossMod® production/sales data or directly answers the questions you’ve repeatedly posed.
Given Clayton’s corporate resources (including Berkshire Hathaway’s ownership of BusinessWire) and MHI’s role as the self‑proclaimed national trade association, both clearly have the capacity to publish transparent CrossMod® data or issue clarifying statements—but have not done so. That persistent silence, combined with years of hype and negligible market share, makes Gemini’s remark—
“It is factually accurate to state that years of evidence demonstrate the CrossMod® program has never lived up to its marketing hype.”
—and its Table 3 observation about “Lack of Data Transparency” both well supported by the available evidence.
MHARR has indeed questioned the CrossMod/new‑class program multiple times, warning that it undermines inherently affordable mainstream HUD Code homes and diverts DTS/GSE support away from the core market.
Table 1 – Documented outreach vs. observable responses
Item
Evidence in draft / online record
Observed response
FEA takeaway
LinkedIn outreach to Clayton Development Group
Your draft reproduces a LinkedIn thread where you ask Clayton’s National Sales Specialist for specific CrossMod/new‑class production numbers (Clayton, Cavco, Champion).
No reply is shown in the thread; no later public clarification found online.
Fair to say a direct, specific request was made and not answered.
Email to Clayton media team (9.7.2026)
The draft includes the full email asking whether “sold” means produced vs. contracted, and requesting total CrossMod units delivered/installed since launch.
Draft notes “no response…as of 9.16.2026”; search finds no public statement correcting or expanding the WaPo claim.
Clayton has had ample opportunity to clarify; their silence is documented.
Repeated MHProNews invitations to MHI/Clayton/Cavco/Champion
Multiple MHProNews FEAs note outreach to MHI and “big boy” brands, plus the standing “Invitation for Feedback” footer.
No public, point‑by‑point rebuttal or data release found on MHI or corporate sites addressing CrossMod performance.
It is fair to say MHProNews has offered them a platform; they have not used it.
Table 2 – Capacity to disclose vs. actual transparency
Actor
Capacity to publish CrossMod data
What they have actually done
Implication
Clayton Homes (BRK)
Has corporate communications, PR staff, and access to BusinessWire via Berkshire Hathaway; routinely issues press releases on other topics.
Publicly told WaPo “more than 2,000” cross‑mod homes sold to 23 subdivisions in 10 states—but did not clarify produced vs. contracted, nor publish national totals.
Demonstrates ability but not willingness to provide granular performance data.
Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI)
Maintains a website, member communications, and has previously published production and market‑share data; coordinates with GSEs and major builders.
Has promoted CrossMods/new‑class, commissioned Roper research, and sought AP Stylebook changes—but has not released a comprehensive national CrossMod KPI dataset.
Supports Gemini’s “Lack of Data Transparency” observation: narrative without full metrics.
MHARR
Independent trade group; regularly publishes production data and policy critiques.
Has repeatedly questioned CrossMod/new‑class as undermining mainstream HUD Code homes and DTS focus.
Provides a documented, critical counter‑voice that MHI/Clayton have not publicly refuted with data.
Table 3 – Support for Gemini’s key statements
Gemini statement
Supporting evidence
FEA judgment
“Years of evidence demonstrate the CrossMod® program has never lived up to its marketing hype.”
1) CrossMod/new‑class launched with heavy MHI/Clayton/GSE promotion and claims of expanded acceptance and new markets. 2) WaPo’s “more than 2,000” units over roughly eight years is a tiny fraction of total HUD Code production (well under 1% by generous estimates). Manufactured and Modular Housing Industry News. ‘Clayton Homes Plant Closure and Manufactured Housing Market Analysis.’ Precision Building System. Oakwood Homes. Differences Between Panelized vs Manufactured Homes. Implications-Lessons-FEAManufactured and Modular Housing Industry News. HISTORIC-Manufactured Home Industry KPIs with Clayton Homes-Champion Homes-Cavco Industries-Manufactured Housing Institute Insights. 50 State Shipments Data. Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) 3) MHI itself acknowledged developers “moving away from CrossMods.”
The combination of hype, negligible market share, and developer attrition makes this statement factually well supported.
Table 3: “Lack of Data Transparency…Obscures poor program performance to maintain the narrative of progress.”
1) No published national CrossMod KPI dataset from MHI or Clayton despite years of promotion. 2) MHProNews’ documented, unanswered requests for specific production/sales numbers. Manufactured and Modular Housing Industry News. www.manufacturedManufactured and Modular Housing Industry News. ‘Clayton Homes Plant Closure and Manufactured Housing Market Analysis.’ Precision Building System. Oakwood Homes. Differences Between Panelized vs Manufactured Homes. Implications-Lessons-FEA 3) Continued marketing language about “expanding the toolbox” and “momentum” without hard metrics.
The pattern of selective disclosure and silence on specifics supports the “data transparency” critique.
MHARR questioning CrossMods
MHARR has repeatedly warned that special classes like CrossMods divert attention and DTS/GSE support away from inherently affordable mainstream HUD Code homes, and has flagged the program as part of consolidation dynamics.
MHARR’s documented critiques align with the consolidation/gatekeeper thesis and reinforce concerns about CrossMod’s structural role.
Conclusion
Your developing draft and Gemini’s FEA both rest on a solid evidentiary foundation:
Outreach is real and documented—LinkedIn, email, and public invitations to Clayton, MHI, and other “big boy” brands.
Responses are conspicuously absent—no public, detailed CrossMod KPI release, no point‑by‑point rebuttal to MHProNews/MHARR critiques.
Capacity to disclose exists—Clayton and MHI clearly have the tools to publish transparent data and clarifications, but have chosen not to.
Independent critics (MHARR, MHBA, etc.) have raised consistent concerns about CrossMods undermining mainstream HUD Code homes and serving consolidation interests.
In that light, Gemini’s statements about CrossMod® failing to live up to its marketing hype and about “Lack of Data Transparency” are not rhetorical flourishes; they are evidence‑driven conclusions that survive cross‑checking. The dual‑AI exercise—Gemini plus Copilot—doesn’t manufacture a desired outcome; it exposes how, when you press for data and accountability, the silence from key actors becomes part of the story.
14. Keep in mind that Bing is a Microsoft product, and that Bill Gates has been a longtime ally of Chairman Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, the parent company of Clayton Homes, 21st Mortgage Corporation, Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance (VMF), Shaw, etc. Then note that Gemini is a Google (Alphabet) tool, which Berkshire Hathaway has taken and grown its stake in. Restated, if anything, one might think that Gemini and Copilot ought to lean into a pro-Clayton and pro-MHI narrative. Yet, given sufficient information and then told to scour the internet for evidence that contradicts MHProNews’ FEA findings, both Gemini and Copilot critique Clayton and MHI’s results (or lack thereof) with CrossMods. The disconnect speaks volumes.
So, at least at this time, the ‘logic’ of artificial intelligence – given solid information to rely upon – the rationale for CrossMods falls apart. And it wasn’t necessary above to use the next illustration that further undermines the claims about CrossMods. Namely, that manufactured home builders were ALWAYS able to be build homes that had upgraded features. Residential features that include higher roof pitches, attached garages or other ‘CrossMod’ features were available years before that name was ever used by MHI. The photo collage in the top left of the collage below includes both MHARR and MHI members as well as another independent producer of HUD Code manufactured homes.
All of the homes in this photo collage are HUD Code manufactured homes. Several HUD Code builders, MHI and MHARR members, are represented. All of the above were non-CrossMods and they predated CrossMods.
15. Methods of manipulation have been known for centuries. People can be manipulated by (in no particular order of importance): sex, money, praise, fear, the desire to be part of the ‘in crowd,’ the attempt to censor opposing views and more. People can be manipulated by what has been called logical fallacies or word-games. And instead of dealing with such concerns head on, MHI and Clayton et al have been…silent. Does MHI have potential counter-arguments? Yes. To see those, see the report linked below. See how that MHI and major brand backed counterargument holds up (or fails to hold up).
a. History is nearly essential in understanding how methods of manipulation may have been deployed over a period of years. Looking back, MHProNews provided graphics like those below to advise/remind readers how those methods of ducking accountability or attempting to dodge reality were previously illustrated.
This item was first uploaded on September 23, 2017. So, for approaching a decade, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) has been ‘ducking, dodging, distracting’ and failing to debate – despite the claim by MHI outside attorney David Gooch that they were open to even “contentious debate.” If so, where is the evidence of that claim made on behalf of MHI? This graphic was first uploaded on June 9, 2020. It is as relevant today as it was then.
b. Mark Twain, a.k.a. Samuel Clemens, is credited with writing in his autobiography in 1907 (some 119 years ago) how statistics could be used to mislead.
c. So, when WaPo said: “Clayton said it has sold more than 2,000” – the question in the opening paragraph stands: what does that CrossMods claim actually mean? As the above demonstrates, neither Clayton nor MHI have clarified. They keep repeating their fanfare as if it was working, when the evidence clearly indicates it is not successful. MHARR and MHProNews each in their own realms pointed out years ago the fallacy – the false and misleading claims – behind the CrossMod notion.
d. It never made good sense to have a kind of manufactured home that needed a MHI trademarked name, “CrossMod.” It has never lived up to their hype. The logic was always that the industry should have fought for the image campaign for ALL manufactured homes, not just for a narrow sliver of the market that has almost ‘no traction.’ Meanwhile, the better part of a decade has gone by and more consolidation has occurred. Apart from MHProNews, MHARR has archived the Consolidation Thesis at the link below.
f. That consolidation thesis stands as the best-known interpretive key for understanding why things have been happening in manufactured housing as they have. Who says? Multiple AIs. While Mark Weiss phrased it differently, his meaning in the quote below is much the same.
“The consolidation of key industry sectors is an ongoing and growing concern that MHI has not addressed because doing so would implicate their own members. Such consolidation has negative effects on consumers (and the industry) and is a subject that MHProNews and MHLivingNews are quite right to report on and cover thoroughly. This is important work that no one else in the industry has shown the stomach or integrity to address.” Mark Weiss, J.D., President and CEO of the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) in on the record remarks emailed to MHProNews. For prior comments by Weiss and MHARR on the topic of monopolization click here. See also See also: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/consolidation-of-key-mh-industry-sectors-ongoing-growing-concern-mhi-hasnt-addressed-because-doing-so-would-implicate-their-own-members-plus-sunday-weekly-mhville-headlines-recap/
g. Look again at the table below.
MHProNews Table 1
CrossMod ‘New Class of Manufactured Housing’ Years
2018
96,555
2019
94,615
2020
94,390
2021
105,772
2022
112,882
2023
89,169
2024
103,314
2025
102,738
YTD through July 2026
2026
50,359
Total Production of all HUD Code manufactured homes.
746,480
If CrossMods have contributed 4k, or 8k, total units over those years, that’s a rounding error. It is nearly nothing. Rather than muddying the waters of HUD Code manufactured housing with a more expensive tier of housing that is less affordable (and thus their need to shift to the ‘attainable’ lingo?) than mainstream manufactured homes. Many HUD plants already offered modular homes that didn’t face local zoning barriers because they were built to local codes, BUT they are more costly than HUD Code homes are. Properly deployed and supported, manufactured housing was and remains the most proven solution to the affordable housing crisis. It is hiding in plain sight. It has, at least on paper, laws that support manufactured housing. Yet MHI won’t fight to enforce those laws? MHI won’t use what amounts to a consumer paid campaign to grow the acceptance and sales of manufactured housing? Such behavior only makes sense if the goal is to keep the industry from growing organically and will thus foster consolidation which favors the companies with deeper capital access and more financing.
More on the findings of researchers on how deliberate deceivers have a problem keeping various lies/half-truths straight is planned for the days ahead. Stay tuned. ##
![JULY2026ManufacturedHousingIndustryProductionRecordsSlightIncreaseManufacturedHousingAssocRegulatoryReformMHARR[1]](http://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/JULY2026ManufacturedHousingIndustryProductionRecordsSlightIncreaseManufacturedHousingAssocRegulatoryReformMHARR1.webp)
![AFFORDABLE.HOUSING.INFORMATION-_TheCrookedEandManufacturedHousingEvidenceOfSystemicFailuresAndCorruptionTheManufacturedHousingInstituteMHI.ConsolidationThesisMHARR[1]](http://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/AFFORDABLE.HOUSING.INFORMATION-_TheCrookedEandManufacturedHousingEvidenceOfSystemicFailuresAndCorruptionTheManufacturedHousingInstituteMHI.ConsolidationThesisMHARR1.webp)
