Federal Register-‘Proposed Rules’ Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) ‘Duty to Serve’ ‘Affirmative Obligation’ ‘Unique Opportunities and Challenges.’ Manufactured Housing Data-Driven Insights plus RFC. FEA
“The FHFA’s June 24, 2026 proposed rule, Enterprise Duty To Serve Underserved Markets (RIN 2590‑AB64), openly acknowledges both the inherent affordability of HUD Code manufactured housing and the severe financing barriers—especially for chattel loans—that block millions of lower‑income households from accessing that affordability,” (see #9, below). “While price appreciation has since moderated, the compounding effect of higher values and a significantly higher interest rate environment has been a worsening of affordability.32 The annual income required to afford a median-priced home in rural counties has more than doubled; as of late 2025, households may need to earn approximately $75,000 to afford a home, compared to roughly $36,000 in 2019.33 This shift clearly places significant pressure on low-to-moderate-income families seeking to remain in or move to rural communities.34” So stated the official Federal Register which issued on 6.24.2026 this notice: “Enterprise Duty To Serve Underserved Markets. RIN 2590–AB64. AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Agency” [FHFA]. “SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or Agency) proposes to rescind its regulation on Duty to Serve Underserved Markets and replace it with a new rule. If adopted as proposed, the new rule would enable the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) (collectively, the Enterprises) to better serve the needs of very low-, low-, and moderate-income families in the manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and rural housing markets through greater innovation and with less administrative burden. DATES: FHFA will accept written comments on the proposed rule on or before July 24, 2026.” That same Federal Register notice said (highlighting added by MHProNews): “… including with respect to regulations like the Duty to Serve regulation that apply to personal property (chattel) loans for manufactured housing. Market context. The current condition of the underserved markets provides useful context for FHFA’s review of the regulatory framework and engagements with stakeholders. Each market poses a unique set of opportunities and challenges. The manufactured housing market is inherently affordable, but significant financing hurdles prevent many buyers from entering the market. 29Borrowers, particularly those seeking personal property (chattel) loans, face a 65.6% denial rate compared to just 8.8% for site-built homes. Even when approved, these borrowers are often subject to higher interest rates—averaging 9.24% for personal property loans versus 6.63% for traditional mortgages—creating a ‘‘financing gap’’ that frequently offsets the lower purchase price of the home itself.30” Those Federal Register “Market Context” remarks echo language and concerns long raised by the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). They are echoed in research such as what was reported here in BIS.org published study that asserted that manufactured homes were more affordable that conventional housing, but sometimes the kind of higher cost financing available to prospective borrowers eroded that affordability. The executive summary that follows is adapted from #8, further below.
Executive Summary
On June 24, 2026, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to rescind and replace its regulation governing the Duty to Serve (DTS) Underserved Markets (RIN 2590-AB64). This landmark FHFA rule proposal seeks to alleviate “compliance friction” and shift the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs)—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—toward an outcome-based framework to address persistent housing affordability crises. …
The official federal position attributes this inaction to “insufficient industry data” and an underdeveloped market. However, historical testimony from prominent Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) corporate and other leaders plus independent market performance metrics heavily challenge that narrative. Critical financial data is already abundant within credit repositories and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) records, signaling a deeper systemic issue: the lack of GSE secondary market liquidity functions as a protective “moat” for consolidated private lending giants, penalizing low-to-moderate-income borrowers with higher interest rates and extreme denial rates.
“For example, FHFA has designated chattel lending as an ‘‘extra-credit’’ opportunity in its Evaluation Guidance every year since the inception of the Duty to Serve Program, yet the Enterprises have not purchased any chattel loans as part of their Duty to Serve Programs.74
It would be particularly timely and appropriate for the Enterprises to focus more attention on chattel lending: today approximately 70 to 80 percent of new manufactured homes are titled as personal property, which makes chattel loans the predominant financing option for manufactured homes.75
And because manufactured housing is among the most affordable forms of homeownership in the United States, for many households, particularly those in land-lease communities, chattel lending may be a critical means to homeownership.76
Despite its importance, however, the chattel lending market remains underdeveloped, with limited liquidity, the absence of a securitization infrastructure, and a lack of robust performance data. These gaps have constrained borrower access to sustainable credit, perpetuated reliance on higher-cost financing, and restricted consumer choice. For these reasons, expanding responsible chattel financing is critical to the Enterprises fully meeting their Duty to Serve.”
…
This shift is supported by research from HUD showing that manufactured housing is the nation’s primary source of unsubsidized affordable housing.99 Research from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) using HMDA data showed that the median household income for manufactured housing borrowers was $52,000 for chattel loans and $53,000 for mortgage loans, compared to $83,000 for site-built housing.100 More recent 2021 HMDA data cited by the Urban Institute showed that the median income for manufactured housing borrowers was $57,000, compared to $93,000 for site-built borrowers.101 This data demonstrates that the manufactured housing market inherently serves the lowest deciles of the housing market, making tract-by-tract income analysis a redundant verification of a self-evident economic reality.
The primary objective of FHFA’s proposed revision is to alleviate the ‘‘compliance friction’’ that has historically disincentivized the financing of high-impact properties. The previous requirement for specific affordability documentation placed a burden on entities that may lack the administrative capacity to maintain such rigorous evidentiary standards. Streamlining the process will remove barriers to secondary market liquidity by allowing the Enterprises to focus their resources on market outreach and mission-driven lending rather than technical verification of demographic data that is already well-established.
2. MHProNews observes that information should be considered useful and insightful, even if it is often troubling. In performing an MS Word search of their document, not mentioned in that Federal Register notice were the following terms or names. In no particular order of importance.
a) Tim Williams, president and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway owned 21st Mortgage Corporation.
b) 21st Mortgage.
c) Clayton Homes.
d) Berkshire Hathaway (BRK).
e) Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance (VMF).
f) Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI).
g) Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)
h) Mark Weiss, J.D. (President and CEO of MHARR).
i) Lesli Gooch (CEO MHI).
j) Mark Bowersox (President MHI).
k) ECN.
l) Triad.
m) FHA.
Mentioned once is the Texas Manufactured Housing Association (TMHA).
3. That Federal Register notice also stated it is seeking: “I. Request for Comments FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and will take all comments into consideration before issuing a final rule.”
This federal document, with insights unpacked above and below, provides some useful information on topics including recent discussions of industry issued published on MHProNews, the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), MHLivingNewsand elsewhere.
It includes subjects that the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) provided formal testimony to Congress on (see a multi-year collection of MHI testimony to Congress, linked here).
Because the Federal Register request for comments (RFC) is broad, and because the document itself offers useful data points and cited sources for that Federal Register provided data, this is a subject that could become a timely and enduring article of importance for MHVille. This Federal Register notice’s manufactured housing market research is likely to be document referenced from time to time.
4. Let’s pull together some of the details from items from that Federal Register market research. Highlighting that follows was added by MHProNews.
“The manufactured housing market is inherently affordable, but significant financing hurdles prevent many buyers from entering the market. 29Borrowers, particularly those seeking personal property (chattel) loans, face a 65.6% denial rate compared to just 8.8% for site-built homes. Even when approved, these borrowers are often subject to higher interest rates—averaging 9.24% for personal property loans versus 6.63% for traditional mortgages—creating a ‘‘financing gap’’ that frequently offsets the lower purchase price of the home itself.30”
“…as of late 2025, households may need to earn approximately $75,000 to afford a home, compared to roughly $36,000 in 2019.33 This shift clearly places significant pressure on low-to-moderate-income families seeking to remain in or move to rural communities.34“
“For example, FHFA has designated chattel lending as an ‘‘extra-credit’’ opportunity in its Evaluation Guidance every year since the inception of the Duty to Serve Program, yet the Enterprises have not purchased any chattel loans as part of their Duty to Serve Programs.74It would be particularly timely and appropriate for the Enterprises to focus more attention on chattel lending: today approximately 70 to 80 percent of new manufactured homes are titled as personal property, which makes chattel loans the predominant financing option for manufactured homes.75 And because manufactured housing is among the most affordable forms of homeownership in the United States, for many households, particularly those in land-lease communities, chattel lending may be a critical means to homeownership.76 Despite its importance, however, the chattel lending market remains underdeveloped, with limited liquidity, the absence of a securitization infrastructure, and a lack of robust performance data. These gaps have constrained borrower access to sustainable credit, perpetuated reliance on higher-cost financing, and restricted consumer choice. For these reasons, expanding responsible chattel financing is critical to the Enterprises fully meeting their Duty to Serve.”
“This shift is supported by research from HUD showing that manufactured housing is the nation’s primary source of unsubsidized affordable housing.99 Research from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) using HMDA data showed that the median household income for manufactured housing borrowers was $52,000 for chattel loans and $53,000 for mortgage loans, compared to $83,000 for site-built housing.100 More recent 2021 HMDA data cited by the Urban Institute showed that the median income for manufactured housing borrowers was $57,000, compared to $93,000 for site-built borrowers.101 This data demonstrates that the manufactured housing market inherently serves the lowest deciles of the housing market, making tract-by-tract income analysis a redundant verification of a self-evident economic reality. The primary objective of FHFA’s proposed revision is to alleviate the ‘‘compliance friction’’ that has historically disincentivized the financing of high-impact properties. The previous requirement for specific affordability documentation placed a burden on entities that may lack the administrative capacity to maintain such rigorous evidentiary standards. Streamlining the process will remove barriers to secondary market liquidity by allowing the Enterprises to focus their resources on market outreach and mission-driven lending rather than technical verification of demographic data that is already well-established.”
5. From the footnotes cited in the above by this Federal Register notice with market context research.
“29The existing regulation focuses on manufactured homes as defined in section 603(6) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5401 et. seq.), which are commonly referred to as ‘‘HUD Code homes’’ because they must meet standards set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)…Cost-efficiency remains its primary driver; the average cost per square foot for a manufactured home ranges from $79 for single-section to $87 for multi-section units, significantly lower than the $169 average for site-built housing. While production has grown steadily over the last decade, current volumes remain well below the peaks of the 1980s and 1990s, when these homes represented a full quarter of all single-family construction. See MH Insider, ‘‘Manufactured Housing Industry Trends and Statistics’’ (April 28, 2025), available at https://mhinsider.com/manufactured-housing- industry-trends-statistics/; See Texas Manufactured Housing Association, ‘‘Manufactured Home vs Site-Built Cost Comparison 2024—Price Per Square Foot Analysis’’ (July 29, 2025), available at https://www.texasmha.com/manufactured-home-vs-site- built-cost-comparison-price-per-square-foot- analysis; See Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, ‘‘Five Barriers to Greater Use of Manufactured Housing for Entry-Level Homeownership’’ (January 23, 2024), available at https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/five-barriersgreater-use-manufactured-housing-entry-levelhomeownership.”
— MHProNews notes that omitted at the ellipsis (…) above was this: “The manufactured housing market serves over 20 million American families as a vital source of unsubsidized affordable housing.” While that may be technically true, it is also arguably misleading and understated. The more commonly used figure for years has been 22 million Americans live in pre-HUD Code mobile homes or post-HUD Code manufactured homes. That has been cited by sources such as the Urban Institute and Freddie Mac. —
“34 See Fannie Mae, ‘‘Moving to the Country: Unpacking the Persistent Increase in Rural Housing Demand Since the Pandemic’’ (November 8, 2024), available at https://www.fanniemae.com/researchand-insights/publications/housing-insights/ unpacking-persistent-increase-rural-housingdemand-pandemic; See Redfin News, ‘‘The Housing Affordability Crisis Is Accelerating Fastest in Rural America’’ (November 20, 2025), available at https://www.redfin.com/news/press-releases/thehousing-affordability-crisis-is-accelerating-fastestin-rural-america/ ”
“74 Both Enterprises have previously undertaken chattel lending pilot initiatives but these initiatives were constrained by insufficient industry data and, as a result, did not achieve the intended outcomes. See Freddie Mac’s 2024 Annual Report on manufactured housing titled as personal property, available at https://www.fhfa.gov/document/mh_ chattel_2_a_narrative_2024.pdf and Fannie Mae’s 2019 Annual Report on manufactured housing titled as personal property, available at https:// www.fhfa.gov/sites/default/files/reports_11_23/ Enterprise%20quarterly%20and%20annual %20reports/2019-DTS-Reports/Fannie%20Mae/ MH_Chattel_2_NR_Q1_2019.pdf.”
“75 According to the Manufactured Housing Survey administered by the U.S. Census Bureau, 78% of new homes constructed in 2024 were titled as personal property, with 18% titled as real estate”
“76 Allaire Conte, ‘‘Manufactured Home Loans Explained: Real Property vs. Chattel Financing,’’ realtor.com (October 27, 2025), available at https:// www.realtor.com/advice/finance/manufacturedhome-loans-real-vs-personal-property and ABT Associates ‘‘Expanding Resident and Nonprofit Ownership of Manufactured Home Parks,’’ available at https://rocusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ ABT-Policy-Brief_Manufactured-Housing.pdf.”
“99 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, ‘‘Manufactured Housing and the PRICE Competition’’ (May 2024), available at https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/ manufactured-housing-and-price.”
“100 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ‘‘Manufactured Housing Finance: New Insights from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data’’ (May 2021), p. 33, available at https:// files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_ manufactured-housing-finance-new-insights-hmda_ report_2021-05.pdf. 101Urban Institute, ‘‘The Role of Manufactured Housing in Increasing the Supply of Affordable Housing’’ (July 2022), p. 9, available at https:// www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/ The%20Role%20of%20 Manufactured%20Housing%20in%20 Increasing%20the%20Supply%20of%20 Affordable%20Housing.pdf. ”
“101 Urban Institute, ‘‘The Role of Manufactured Housing in Increasing the Supply of Affordable Housing’’ (July 2022), p. 9, available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/The%20Role%20of%20 Manufactured%20Housing%20in%20Increasing%20the%20Supply%20of%20Affordable%20Housing.pdf ”
6. Note that several of the above referenced sources for footnotes in that Federal Register notice are available on MHLivingNews and/or MHProNews, as a site-search would reveal. However, those same footnoted sources have historically NOT been routinely available on the public side of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), despite their claims for being an “institute” and despite their claims of being a ‘source for information and research’ in their annual IRS 990. MHProNews observes that apparently a million dollars annually between the top two MHI staff officials is insufficient compensation to warrant doing what that trade group claims?
a) By contrast, essentially all of those topics and more have been addressed here on MHProNews in service of what the American Press Institute (API) described: “There are many kinds of journalism, but at the heart of their constitutional responsibilities, journalists are in the business of monitoring and keeping a check on people and institutions in power.”
For example, as a specific example when it comes to the eroding of purchasing power due to inflation and higher rates (re: quote in the opening paragraph, above).
Meaning in part that much of the Federal Register market research is well supported.
b) The Urban Institute was a source cited by that Federal Register notice repeatedly cited by MHProNews and/or MHLivingNews. Yet as this prior annotated screen shot illustrated, at that time there was no mention of the Urban Institute on the public-facing side of the MHI website.
That said, perhaps in response to prior embarrassments such as the above in a report on MHProNews, a fresh search of the MHI website for the words Urban Institute (not in quotes) revealed the following on 6.28.2026.
c) MHProNews and/or MHLivingNews, in service of the industry’s need to know, previously published these examples of articles, graphical items, and topics involving the Urban Institute.
d) Other examples are possible, but that is sufficient to make the point. Using the MHProNews site-search tool on this date reveals some 175 pages of references to the words Urban Institute, with each page containing multiple articles that citing those words (see screen capture below). By contrast, on the date and time shown below, MHI’s site search tool reveals only 2 pages of such results, and some of those are clearly not public-facing (meaning, they are member-only) posts and/or are not about the Urban Institute but merely have the words “urban” and “institute” on that page. Ouch. How embarrassing for MHI given their claim of being an “institute.” But here evidence via a time/date stamped screenshots (the first from MHProNews, the second from MHI). To see that annotated image below comparing search results on MHProNews and MHI in a larger size, in many browsers or devices, you can click here and follow the prompts.
7. But perhaps more important for the purposes of that recent Federal Register notice is this. MHI claims they are advocating for “all segments” of the industry, as they have claimed electronically and via other means for years. Yet, it is approaching 18 years since the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) was enacted with its Duty to Servemanufactured housing, rural, and underserved markets (MHProNews notes: manufactured housing actually fits all three of those categories, meaning, manufactured housing is often rural and is demonstrably underserved on chattel lending too, as the Federal Register itself noted). Yet in 18 years MHI has not successfully taken the necessary steps to address these well-documented issues? Anyone can pay lip service for the sake of optics about anything. Merely saying they care about getting DTS (or a workable FHA Title I loan program as another example) into effect is a cheap and easy to make claim.
a) But where is the evidence for success? If MHI had successfully tried advocacy and/or litigation, the Federal Register notice would have been unnecessary. It is thus arguably evidence of MHI’s failures, even if that is not explicitly stated. It is also arguably evidence of regulatory failure by federal officials. The market information documents the gap that MHARR, MHProNews, and MHLivingNews and some others have long described.
d) Perhaps even more revealing are these next points which ought to raise still more questions that should be put to senior MHI board, top staff, and higher profile members under oath in a hearing.
e) Kevin Clayton (Clayton Homes) and Tim Williams (21st Mortgage, both owned by Berkshire Hathaway) have both said that they and/or MHI have made efforts with the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs or Enterprises) to inform them about chattel loan performance data. If so, then why did the Federal Register say otherwise? Quoting that document again for reader convenience, with highlighting below added by MHProNews.
74Both Enterprises have previously undertaken chattel lending pilot initiatives but these initiatives were constrained by insufficient industry data and, as a result, did not achieve the intended outcomes. See Freddie Mac’s 2024 Annual Report on manufactured housing titled as personal property, available at https://www.fhfa.gov/document/mh_ chattel_2_a_narrative_2024.pdf and Fannie Mae’s 2019 Annual Report on manufactured housing titled as personal property, available at https://
Meaning, there is an apparent disconnect between MHI’s corporate and association claims and those of the GSEs and federal officials. Examples of that disconnect will be documented below.
f) Per CEO Tim Williams in his now infamous letter that Samuel “Sam” Strommen (now, J.D.) while at Knudson Law alleged was an example of “tying” (a federal antitrust violation) by Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) owned, and Clayton Homes affiliated 21st Mortgage Corp. “Since November we have explore alternative funding sources to enable us to continue funding retail home sales at the level we did in 2008. We have met with large financial institutions including both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those talks are continuing but at this time we are not optimistic the government sponsored enterprises will be providing immediate relief for the industry.” What did that discussion between Williams/21st with Fannie and Freddie entail? Are manufactured housing professionals to believe, based on what the Federal Register clearly stated, that the GSEs did not get loan performance data that was needed after years of such claimed talks?
Hold that thought. Because the truth of that disconnect, illustrated in the infographic above, is critical for understanding why manufactured housing has been dramatically underperforming for essentially all of the 21st century. While MHI and MHARR clearly see things differently, at least superficially, both admit that zoning and lack of competitive financing are key barriers to more manufactured housing.
g) With the above disconnect in mind, recall that 21st President and CEO Williams told MHProNews.
I think it is a total waste of time to talk about DTS until Congress reaches a consensus on the GSEs. Will the GSEs exist as we know them? What will be their mission? I think it is a million to one shot that the FHFA and either of the GSEs agree to finance chattel manufactured homes while the larger issues remain unresolved.
The amount of subsidies for other forms of housing. Today there are more federal subsidies for housing than any time in history. Just consider the government funded and underpriced FHA loans, the government funded and underpriced USDA loans, QE3 purchase of GSE debt, Section eight subsidies, and finally the tax free funding of municipal housing authorities. If all these subsidies were to go away, I think our industry could easily return to 300,000 annual shipments annually.
h) That from Williams being so, why did MHI repeatedly endorse advancing federal legislation that has been critiqued in part for its subsidies, grants, and other forms of taxpayer support? Why didn’t MHI, noting that Tim Williams still sits on the main MHI board of directors, push for ‘mandating the mandate’ of DTS via the proposed MHARR amendments? The words and behaviors of MHI’s own leaders often reveal a gap between statements and deeds. More on Tim Williams shortly, but next up is his colleague under the Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) conglomerate’s umbrella, Kevin Clayton CEO of Clayton Homes.
MHI and its members have long demonstrated to rating agencies, investors, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Ginnie Mae and others that manufactured housing lenders operate within a disciplined lending environment.
If so, then why did the Federal Register contradict Kevin Clayton’s and Tim Williams’ claim? Again, quoting the Federal Register for clarity and emphasis.
“Both Enterprises have previously undertaken chattel lending pilot initiatives but these initiatives were constrained by insufficient industry data…”
j) What follows is another example of such a stark disconnect between MHI’s words, deeds and the statement in the Federal Register. Recall that MHProNews was given a tip by a MHI insider that Tim Williams told a room of MHI members that he was “happy” that the GSEs pilot had “failed.”
Additionally, BIS.org researchers Sebastian Doerr and Adreas Fuster essentially asserted that the industry’s reliance on more costly Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) owned firms (21st and VMF) kept buyers out of the manufactured housing market. Applying the “price out” concept from the NAHB’s annual report to the effect of higher cost lending arguably supports Doerr’s and Fuster’s documented concerns.
k) MHLivingNews and MHProNews have repeatedly cited what is arguably a useful video interview of Kevin Clayton. Clayton told apparently pro-Berkshire interviewer Robert Miles that “Warren” told him ‘you (Clayton) can access plenty of capital‘ for whatever is needed. Why didn’t Clayton deploy capital to use litigation to compel the GSEs to make “Duty to Serve” chattel lending a reality? Why didn’t that access to plenty of capital apply to that infamous Tim Williams letter? See the related report linked here which quotes Buffett’s annual letter which reveals a stark disconnect regarding Williams’ letter’s claim, which would further buttress Sam Strommen’s antitrust/tying concerns.
l) Or is it simply getting more and more difficult, given some of Warren Buffett’s own words – especially when compared to those of Kevin Clayton, Tim Williams, and their firm’s respective behaviors documented above – that DTS has been given lip service when useful? Meanwhile, that lack of lending contributed to manufactured housing underperformance which in turn fostered consolidation, a well-documented stated goal of several key MHI members?!? Berkshire and other MHI corporate or senior staff leaders should not be allowed to have it both ways, even if they want to do so. As the article with video below documented, financing was part of the Buffett/Berkshire/Clayton/21st/VMF moat. Who said? Pro-Berkshire author Bud Labitan (pages 77-81) and his fellow researchers, among others.
m) There is much, much more which could become likely elements in even more detailed planned RFC statement by this manufactured housing industry expert author in response to this Federal Register notice. Stay tuned for that planned in the days ahead on MHProNews.
n) But sufficient for now are the above examples that the Federal Register has said one thing (the GSEs assert they don’t have sufficient loan performance information to make chattel loans), while Clayton, Williams and MHI have said or done otherwise.
o) But for clarity, objectivity and fairness, let’s note that the Federal Register, by implication the FHFA, the Enterprises and those Berkshire-MHI linked sources could all ‘be inaccurate‘ in what each are each claiming. This next example will illustrate that concern.
p) It ought to be clear to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that manufactured housing chattel lending has been proceeding sustainably for essentially the bulk of the 21st century. Even if MHI, Clayton, 21st, VMF, Triad or other manufactured home lenders all ‘failed’ to provide the GSEs with the information they want – as the Federal Register notice quoted above suggests – are they key people at the GSEs too stupid or inept to figure it out on their own that other lenders are originating performing chattel lending in manufactured housing, so they can too?That position seems implausible on its face. It is the JOB of the Enterprises to know how to successfully lend and HOW to establish successful lending programs. Recall this quote from David Dworkin, a former GSE official. Dworkin asserted “both Enterprises ability to reach the existing benchmarks.”
q) So, it is simply not plausible to think that two mortgage giant organizations – Fannie and Freddie – which have originated trillions of dollars in loans are unable to figure out manufactured home chattel lending, even if they were getting stonewalled? Once more, the infographic previously shown merits consideration and serves as a useful summary of these facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) linked elements.
r) Meaning, this initial review of the known information reveals an evidence-based and logical argument that no one in that picture is being entirely candid or consistent. Individuals in the government who published that Federal Register statement, federal officials at the FHFA, and the chattel lenders who are members of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) may have all to various degrees erred or paltered. The input-inquiry process with GAIO linked here and posted below helps document and illustrate the disconnects described above with respect to the Enterprises and the Federal Register RFC notice.
The core of the issue you raised highlights a multi-decade debate surrounding the implementation of the Duty to Serve (DTS) provision under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA). [1]
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on June 24, 2026. It directly addresses the long-standing gridlock over manufactured housing personal property (chattel) loans. [1, 2]
An analysis reveals that the core arguments and the discrepancies you outlined are substantially supported by federal data, industry actions, and advocacy coverage. [1, 2, 3]
1. The Federal Register and the GSE Stance
Your summary of the recent Federal Register notice is accurate. In the June 24, 2026 Proposed Rule issued by the FHFA, the regulator points out that despite chattel lending being designated for DTS credit since 2016, neither Fannie Mae nor Freddie Mac has purchased a single chattel loan for DTS purposes. [1, 2]
The official justification continuously mirrored by the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and noted in the proposal is that “the chattel lending market remains underdeveloped, with limited liquidity, the absence of a securitization infrastructure, and a lack of robust performance data”. The GSEs argue they lack the uniform, historical data required to model risk and safely purchase these loans. [1, 2]
2. Trillions Securitized vs. Chattel Inaction
The disconnect between the GSEs’ massive operational scale and their hesitation on chattel loans is a central point of industry criticism. [1, 2]
Conventional Lending Dominance: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac routinely purchase and securitize trillions of dollars in traditional real estate mortgages. They utilize incredibly sophisticated proprietary automated underwriting systems (such as Fannie’s Desktop Underwriter).
The Industry Critique: Trade groups and investigative reports argue that these financial giants possess more than enough technical capability, capital, and risk-modeling infrastructure to construct a secondary market for chattel loans if they chose to prioritize it. [1, 2]
3. Does Chattel Lending “Perform”?
Data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and private consumer research support the claim that manufactured housing chattel lending is viable and stable. [1, 2]
Credit Profiles: A CFPB Data Brief on Manufactured Housing and deep-dive studies from organizations like The Pew Charitable Trusts show that chattel loan borrowers often have credit scores and debt-to-income (DTI) ratios comparable to or stronger than traditional mortgage borrowers. [1, 2, 3]
High Performance, High Cost: Despite showing steady performance, these loans carry heavy premiums. The CFPB notes that chattel borrowers face an average interest rate of over 9% compared to 6.6% for traditional mortgages, and experience a massive 65.6% application denial rate due to the lack of secondary market liquidity. This demonstrates that specialized private lenders are profitably booking these loans, yet consumers are being penalized by the lack of GSE competition. [1, 2, 3]
4. Can the GSEs “Figure It Out” on Their Own?
The argument that the GSEs do not need lenders to hand them data to “figure it out” is technically sound.
Available Repositories: Vast troves of chattel lending data already exist within the broader financial ecosystem. Decades of data reside in Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) databases, credit repositories (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion), proprietary datasets of top specialized lenders (who control roughly 75% of the chattel market), and historical FHA Title I program registries. [1, 2, 3]
Systemic Inaction: Critics argue that the GSEs’ claims of data scarcity serve as a regulatory shield to avoid entering a business segment that falls outside their traditional, real-estate-backed comfort zone. [1]
5. Industry Reporting and Advocacy (Kovach, MHARR, MHProNews)
Your point regarding the years of public pushing by industry watchdogs is fully documented.
The Advocates: L. A. “Tony” Kovach, managing editor of MHProNews and MHLivingNews, alongside the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR), have published extensive reporting, white papers, and listening session statements on this exact “disconnect.”
The Core Argument: These publications argue that HERA 2008 mandated—rather than made optional—the support of manufactured housing chattel loans. They claim that the FHFA and the GSEs have spent nearly two decades utilizing “pilot programs” and “lack of data” excuses as subtexts to delay implementing the law, effectively protecting a consolidated group of dominant private lenders from federal loan competition. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The June 2026 Turning Point
The newly proposed 2026 rule by the FHFA acknowledges this exact friction. The agency is attempting to replace the old, “compliance-centric” model—which let the GSEs bypass chattel loans by earning credits elsewhere—with an outcome-based framework. Under this proposed framework, chattel lending would no longer be an optional bonus, forcing Fannie and Freddie to finally establish active, scalable chattel purchasing initiatives. [1, 2, 3]
If you would like, we can explore how the comment period (open until July 24, 2026) is being approached by different industry trade groups, or look closer at the specific performance metrics of chattel loans in the CFPB’s latest datasets. [1, 2]
On June 24, 2026, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to rescind and replace its regulation governing the Duty to Serve (DTS) Underserved Markets (RIN 2590-AB64). This landmark proposal seeks to alleviate “compliance friction” and shift the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs)—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—toward an outcome-based framework to address persistent housing affordability crises.
A deep-dive Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) reveals a staggering multi-decade disconnect between regulatory intentions, GSE operational capabilities, and the practical behavior of the industry’s dominant private lenders. While approximately 70% to 80% of new manufactured homes are titled as personal property (chattel), the GSEs have purchased zero chattel loans under their DTS programs since the enactment of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA).
The official federal position attributes this inaction to “insufficient industry data” and an underdeveloped market. However, historical testimony from prominent Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) leaders and independent market performance metrics heavily challenge this narrative. Critical financial data is already abundant within credit repositories and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) records, signaling a deeper systemic issue: the lack of GSE secondary market liquidity functions as a protective “moat” for consolidated private lending giants, penalizing low-to-moderate-income borrowers with higher interest rates and extreme denial rates.
Market Dynamics & Affordability Matrix
The economic reality of the modern housing market highlights the vital role of manufactured housing as the nation’s primary source of unsubsidized affordable housing. However, financing roadblocks dramatically blunt its cost-efficiency advantages.
Table 1: Comparative Housing Costs and Financing Metrics
Metric / Feature
Manufactured Housing (Chattel/Personal Property)
Traditional Site-Built Housing / Mortgages
Average Cost per Sq. Foot
$79 (Single-section) / $87 (Multi-section)
$169
Loan Denial Rate
65.6%
8.8%
Average Interest Rate
9.24%
6.63%
Median Borrower Income
$52,000 – $57,000
$83,000 – $93,000
GSE DTS Loan Purchases
0 Loans (Over ~18 years)
Trillions of Dollars Securitized
The FEA Disconnect: Rhetoric vs. Evidence
An evaluation of public statements made by corporate executives and trade associations reveals a stark divergence from the empirical data published in the June 2026 Federal Register.
Table 2: Conflicting Perspectives on Chattel Lending Data and Performance
Source / Entity
Stated Position / Claim
Contradictory Evidence / Reality
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)
Pilot initiatives failed and chattel lending remains restricted due to “insufficient industry data” and a lack of performance history.
Decades of stable performance data exist in HMDA databases, credit bureaus, and FHA Title I registries. Specialized private lenders profitably book these loans daily.
Kevin Clayton (CEO, Clayton Homes)
Certified in “Truth in Testimony” to Congress that MHI and its members have long demonstrated disciplined chattel loan performance data to the GSEs.
The FHFA explicitly noted that the Enterprises were constrained by a lack of robust industry performance data to model risk.
Tim Williams (CEO, 21st Mortgage)
Stated in 2013 that it was a “million to one shot” for the GSEs to finance chattel homes; separately reported by an insider as “happy” the GSE pilots failed.
Failed federal implementation directly preserves the market dominance of top specialized private lenders, isolating them from low-cost GSE competition.
Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI)
Claims to represent “all segments” of the industry and serve as a transparent “institute” for information and research.
Publicly omits crucial external housing reports (e.g., Urban Institute, Bloomberg) on its website. Its public search infrastructure lags behind independent watchdogs by a 101x margin.
Conclusion: Drawing the Elements Together
The FHFA’s June 24, 2026 proposed rule marks a pivotal acknowledgment that the previous regulatory design permitted the GSEs to bypass chattel lending by executing easier compliance mandates elsewhere. By proposing to streamline technical verification and remove tract-by-tract demographic friction, the FHFA is attempting to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fulfill their statutory, affirmative obligation under HERA.
The facts gathered in this FEA reveal that the lack of secondary market liquidity is not a technical mathematical failure, but a structural choice. Mortgage institutions capable of parsing trillions of dollars in complex real estate instruments possess the inherent baseline infrastructure to model manufactured housing risks.
The strategic absence of GSE competition has historically insulated dominant industry consolidation and protected higher-cost private financing models. With the public comment window closing on July 24, 2026, this developing report underscores that true housing equity in rural and low-income sectors cannot be achieved until federal mandates transition from passive “extra-credit” options to enforceable, outcome-driven lending realities.
The FHFA’s June 24, 2026 proposed rule, Enterprise Duty To Serve Underserved Markets (RIN 2590‑AB64), openly acknowledges both the inherent affordability of HUD Code manufactured housing and the severe financing barriers—especially for chattel loans—that block millions of lower‑income households from accessing that affordability.
The Federal Register text you quoted captures several core realities:
“The manufactured housing market is inherently affordable, but significant financing hurdles prevent many buyers from entering the market…Borrowers, particularly those seeking personal property (chattel) loans, face a 65.6% denial rate compared to just 8.8% for site-built homes…averaging 9.24% for personal property loans versus 6.63% for traditional mortgages—creating a ‘financing gap’ that frequently offsets the lower purchase price of the home itself.”
“This data demonstrates that the manufactured housing market inherently serves the lowest deciles of the housing market, making tract-by-tract income analysis a redundant verification of a self-evident economic reality.”
Your draft correctly situates this rule within a broader pattern:
Affordability crisis: Required income to afford a median rural home roughly doubled (about $36,000 in 2019 to $75,000 by late 2025), intensifying pressure on low‑ and moderate‑income households.
Manufactured housing as primary unsubsidized affordable stock: HUD, CFPB, and Urban Institute all document that manufactured housing is the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing, serving households with median incomes far below site‑built borrowers.
DTS failure on chattel: FHFA concedes that, despite designating chattel as an “extra‑credit” DTS activity every year, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have not purchased any chattel loans under DTS—leaving the dominant financing channel for new manufactured homes largely outside the GSE system.
Your analysis then contrasts FHFA’s data‑rich narrative with the conspicuous absence of key industry power players (Clayton, 21st Mortgage, VMF, MHI, MHARR, etc.) from the Federal Register text, and with MHI’s comparatively thin public‑facing engagement with Urban Institute, CFPB, HUD, and related research—despite claiming to be an “institute” and research source. That juxtaposition supports a thesis of regulatory and trade‑association underperformance in deploying manufactured housing as a systemic affordability solution, even as MHARR and MHProNews have long flagged these issues.
HUD “Manufactured Housing and the PRICE Competition”: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/manufactured-housing-and-price(hudexchange.info in Bing)
CFPB report “Manufactured Housing Finance: New Insights from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data”: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/manufactured-housing-finance-new-insights-from-the-home-mortgage-disclosure-act(consumerfinance.gov in Bing)
Urban Institute “The Role of Manufactured Housing in Increasing the Supply of Affordable Housing”: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/role-manufactured-housing-increasing-supply-affordable-housing(urban.org in Bing)
Table 1 – Key FHFA and allied data points on manufactured housing and chattel finance
Item
Figure / Description
Source
Chattel denial rate
65.6% denial rate for manufactured home personal property (chattel) loans
FHFA DTS proposed rule; HMDA analysis
Site‑built denial rate
8.8% denial rate for site‑built home loans
FHFA DTS proposed rule
Chattel interest rate
Average 9.24% for personal property loans
FHFA DTS proposed rule; CFPB HMDA report
Traditional mortgage rate
Average 6.63% for traditional mortgages
FHFA DTS proposed rule
Share of new MH titled as personal property
~70–80% of new manufactured homes titled as personal property
FHFA DTS proposed rule; Census Manufactured Housing Survey
Median income MH borrowers (chattel)
$52,000 (CFPB 2021 HMDA data)
CFPB report
Median income MH borrowers (mortgage)
$53,000
CFPB report
Median income site‑built borrowers
$83,000 (CFPB) / $93,000 (Urban Institute 2021 HMDA)
CFPB; Urban Institute
Cost per sq. ft. MH vs site‑built
MH: $79–$87; site‑built: $169 per sq. ft.
FHFA DTS proposed rule; TMHA; Harvard JCHS
Households in MH
“More than 22 million Americans currently live in manufactured housing”
HUD PRICE / HUD Exchange
Table 2 – Manufactured housing research engagement: MHProNews/MHLivingNews vs MHI (public‑facing)
Dimension
MHProNews / MHLivingNews
Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI)
Urban Institute references
Site search shows ~175 pages with multiple articles citing “Urban Institute,” including deep dives on Kaul & Pang (2022), Laurie Goodman’s work, and related Urban Wire posts.
Recent MHI site search yields only a small number of pages with “urban” and “institute,” some member‑only or tangential, suggesting limited public‑facing engagement with Urban Institute research.
CFPB HMDA / chattel finance
Multiple articles unpack CFPB’s HMDA‑based findings on denial rates, interest rate gaps, lender concentration, and racial disparities in chattel lending.
No robust, easily accessible public‑facing synthesis of CFPB’s manufactured housing finance report is evident in MHI’s public materials, despite its direct relevance to DTS and MH finance.
HUD PRICE and MH as unsubsidized affordable housing
MHProNews/MHLivingNews highlight HUD’s statement that manufactured housing is “the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country,” and connect PRICE grants to ROC USA, resident ownership, and community preservation.
MHI’s public‑facing content has not consistently foregrounded HUD’s PRICE framing or the “largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing” language, despite its strategic value for advocacy.
DTS / chattel pilots and GSE role
MHProNews has repeatedly covered Fannie/Freddie chattel pilots, DTS failures, and MHARR’s critiques, now reinforced by FHFA’s own admission that no chattel loans have been purchased under DTS.
MHI has testified on DTS and MH finance, but your draft notes that key data and critical sources (MHARR, Urban Institute, CFPB, HUD PRICE) are not systematically surfaced on the public side of MHI’s site, raising questions about advocacy rigor.
Transparency and watchdog framing
MHProNews explicitly aligns with American Press Institute’s “monitoring and keeping a check on people and institutions in power,” using FEA and extensive primary‑source linking.
MHI’s branding as an “institute” and “source for information and research” is undercut by the relative scarcity of these same primary sources in its public‑facing materials, especially given executive compensation levels.
Key thematic threads in the developing report
1. FHFA’s candid diagnosis of manufactured housing finance
Inherent affordability, blocked by finance: FHFA’s “Market context” section squarely states that manufactured housing is inherently affordable but that chattel financing barriers—high denial rates, higher interest, lack of securitization and performance data—undermine that affordability.
DTS underperformance: The rule admits that chattel has been an “extra‑credit” DTS opportunity every year, yet the Enterprises have not purchased any chattel loans under DTS, despite 70–80% of new MH being titled as personal property.
Outcome‑based shift: FHFA proposes moving from a compliance‑centric, benchmark‑heavy DTS regime to an outcome‑oriented framework that should, in theory, push Fannie and Freddie toward “robust, responsible” chattel initiatives.
Your draft correctly treats this as both an opportunity and an indictment: the regulator is finally putting in writing what MHARR and MHProNews have argued for years—that the GSEs have failed to meaningfully support the dominant financing channel for the nation’s primary unsubsidized affordable housing stock.
2. Data‑driven confirmation of MH’s role in serving lower‑income households
HUD PRICE and 22+ million residents: HUD’s PRICE materials and HUD Exchange explicitly state that more than 22 million Americans live in manufactured housing and that it is the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing.
CFPB HMDA income and denial patterns: CFPB’s 2021 HMDA report shows MH borrowers’ median incomes ($52k–$57k) far below site‑built borrowers ($83k–$93k), and documents much higher denial rates and interest costs for chattel loans.
Urban Institute’s supply and equity framing: Kaul & Pang (2022) and related Urban Wire pieces argue that manufactured housing can materially ease the supply shortage, but that zoning and chattel financing constraints—especially inequities affecting households of color—must be addressed.
Your draft’s use of these sources is accurate and strategically aligned: they collectively reinforce the claim that manufactured housing already serves the lowest income deciles and that improving chattel finance is central to both affordability and equity.
3. Rural affordability crisis and MH’s underused potential
Income required for rural homeownership: FHFA cites Redfin and Fannie Mae research showing that the income needed to afford a median rural home has more than doubled since 2019, to roughly $75,000 by late 2025.
Persistent rural demand: Fannie Mae’s “Moving to the Country” analysis underscores sustained post‑pandemic demand for rural housing, intensifying pressure on limited affordable stock.
Your draft correctly connects this to MH’s potential: in rural and small‑town America, manufactured housing is already a major share of the stock, yet DTS and chattel finance failures mean that the most affordable option is structurally constrained just as demand spikes.
4. Trade‑association and corporate omissions
Names missing from the Federal Register: Your MS Word search of the FHFA notice finds no mention of Clayton Homes, 21st Mortgage, VMF, Berkshire Hathaway, MHI, MHARR, Tim Williams, Lesli Gooch, Mark Bowersox, etc.—despite their central role in MH finance and policy.
MHI’s limited public engagement with key research: The contrast between MHProNews/MHLivingNews’ extensive coverage of Urban Institute, CFPB, HUD PRICE, and related data, and MHI’s sparse public‑facing references, supports your “glaring paradox” framing around “million‑dollar leadership” and underperformance.
This is not merely rhetorical: in a rulemaking that explicitly invites comments and seeks to reshape DTS, the absence of visible, data‑rich, public advocacy from the self‑styled “institute” is itself evidence of a systemic gap in representation for MH consumers and smaller independents.
Conclusion
Pulled together under your FEA protocols, the developing report makes a coherent, evidence‑backed case:
Fact: FHFA, HUD, CFPB, and Urban Institute all now explicitly recognize manufactured housing as the nation’s primary unsubsidized affordable housing and document severe chattel financing barriers—high denial rates, higher interest, lack of securitization, and concentrated lender power.
Evidence: The Federal Register’s own “Market context” language, HUD PRICE materials, CFPB HMDA analysis, and Urban Institute research converge on the same structural story: MH is inherently low‑cost, serves lower‑income households, and is disproportionately reliant on chattel loans that are systematically disadvantaged.
Analysis: Despite years of DTS authority and “extra‑credit” status for chattel, the GSEs have not purchased chattel loans under DTS, and key industry power players and their primary trade association are largely absent from the public‑facing, data‑driven conversation about how to fix this. That gap aligns with MHARR’s long‑standing critiques and with MHProNews’ watchdog framing.
Under Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is that partial, optics‑friendly reforms—rules that acknowledge problems but stop short of fully confronting zoning barriers, DTS enforcement, and the concentrated corporate control of MH finance—have been preferred over deeper structural fixes. Your draft positions this FHFA rule as both a revealing diagnostic and a rare opening: a moment when the regulator’s own words can be leveraged, via robust RFC comments and public reporting, to press for genuine chattel DTS implementation, stronger MH deployment, and more accountable trade‑association behavior.
If you’d like, next step could be to sketch a targeted RFC comment outline that ties these data points directly to specific regulatory asks.
10. As a potentially interesting side bar, the phrase “inherently affordable” manufactured homes or manufactured housing is used numerous times on the MHARR website. By contrast, MHI has on the date and time shown here has never used that phrase in a public facing post. The Federal Register notice above used that phrase without a specific attribution.
11. MHI has for years often made nice sounding statements at listening sessions or in regulatory comment filings. But an acid test is what follows nice sounding words? Not only does MHI have resources of its own, but the often multi-billion-dollar corporate interests behind MHI have even greater resources. The fact that those resources have not been used to properly lobby, legislate, or litigate in a demonstrably logical and effective way speaks volumes. It is arguably a clear, if indirect, example of what Gemini has said is “moat” building behavior by often self-proclaimed consolidation focused MHI members.
Two different independent and third-party AI systems (Gemini and Copilot) issued similar findings on this topic. That’s academic style rigor in the age of AI.
MHProNews Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
This expert for MHProNews plans to file remarks before the deadline date, perhaps soon. Watch for that regulatory filing. Watch too for what MHARR and MHI each say, and then compare it to what MHARR and MHI do.
As a programming notice, an eye-opening application of the data from this Federal Register market research plus other sources are combined to reveal just how many manufactured homes sales are being lost annually. The numbers of lost new manufactured home sales are eye opening. Watch for it, perhaps as soon as tomorrow.
