MHARR Reports New Manufactured Home Production Continues to Fall. Doug Gorman ‘Speaks’ from Beyond Grave. Will Manufactured Housing Institute Respond to Declining Production-Related Woes? FEA

According to the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) from Part I or here (bold added for emphasis): “Just-released statistics indicate that HUD Code manufacturers produced 8,385 new homes in May 2026, a 9.6% decrease from the 9,281 new HUD Code homes produced in May 2025. Cumulative industry production for 2026 now totals 41,433 new HUD Code homes, as compared with 44,923 over the same period in 2025, a year-over-year decline of 7.7%.” Those data points ought to merit alarm, In the Regulatory Comments letter linked here and in a guest-article submitted here by multiple award-winning retailers Doug Gorman years ago to MHProNews, that man continues to ‘speak’ after his death. Both sets of remarks by Gorman merit attention NOW, because they are relevant to the plight that cost thousands of HUD Code manufactured home retailers to lose their life’s work all because of what Gorman referred to as a “conspiracy.” As MHProNews is the documented and as yet not directly or pointedly challenged most popular platform news and views platform in 21st century manufactured housing history, the second part of that headline arguably merits consideration under the facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) journalistic formula too. Indeed, one should wonder why and how is it that the total of Clayton Homes (BRK), Champion Homes (SKY) and Cavco Industries (CVCO) website traffic combined can be rivaled by the traffic of this publication? How can multiple billion-dollar businesses be rivaled in the attention they draw to themselves combined by rivaled by MHProNews? While there are obviously many possible answers to that, one answer may be this. Neither MHI, nor the ‘Big Three Cs’ (Clayton-Champion-Cavco), nor ‘the REITs’ (the loose term sometimes used to describe the consolidation-focused members of MHI) have arguably demonstrated a routine taste for providing a steady diet of facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) as opposed to the four Ps of paltering, posing, posturing or propaganda. MHI has apparently not responded to this latest data or related topics: see the evidence linked here.

See what third-party artificial intelligence (AIs) had to say about the above, linked and what follows in Part II. As a pull quote from Part II #1 is the following.

“Despite the ongoing supply deficit and independent industry outcry, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and its dominant consolidation-focused corporate brands (Clayton, Champion Homes (SKY), and Cavco) have not issued direct public-facing responses or structural solutions to these declining numbers within standard industry channels.

…

Because the mathematical performance metrics cannot be disputed, the corporate establishment avoids public debates that would draw further attention to these facts.

…

Without these explicit fixes, generic real estate…packages offer zero relief to the entry-level HUD Code manufactured home market.”

From Part II #2.

“MHI‑backed bills and DOE compromises leave DTS chattel and MHIA preemption largely untouched, preserving the status quo.”

There is much more ahead.

This MHProNews facts-evidence-analysis is underway.

 

 

Part I

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                      Contact: MHARR

                                                                                                                        (202) 783-4087

INDUSTRY PRODUCTION DECLINES AGAIN IN MAY 2026

Washington, D.C., July 6, 2026 – The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) reports that according to official statistics compiled on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), HUD Code manufactured housing industry year-over-year production continued to decline in May 2026. Just-released statistics indicate that HUD Code manufacturers produced 8,385 new homes in May 2026, a 9.6% decrease from the 9,281 new HUD Code homes produced in May 2025. Cumulative industry production for 2026 now totals 41,433 new HUD Code homes, as compared with 44,923 over the same period in 2025, a year-over-year decline of 7.7%.

A further analysis of the official industry statistics shows that the top ten shipment states from January 2023 — with monthly, cumulative, current reporting year (2026) and prior year (2025) shipments per category as indicated — are:

 

State	Current Month (May 2026)	Cumulative Top Ten Since Jan 2023	2026	2025
Texas	1511	58237	6839	7985
Florida	588	24474	2896	2803
North Carolina	465	20676	2485	2760
Alabama	499	18887	2383	2420
South Carolina	455	16929	2223	2390
Georgia	430	15429	2146	2126
Louisiana	316	15420	1581	2154
Mississippi	337	12688	1789	1815
Kentucky	363	12646	1734	1587
Tennessee	261	12422	1554	1715

The May 2026 statistics move Georgia into 6^th place on the cumulative top-ten shipments list, while Louisiana falls to 7^th place.

The industry’s continuing sluggish performance shows, at least in part, the ongoing negative market impact of the utter failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – after nearly two full decades – to fully and properly implement the statutory Duty to Serve Underserved Markets (DTS) mandate. As the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) recently conceded, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have totally failed to serve the industry’s dominant chattel lending sector, which represents nearly 80% of the entire manufactured housing consumer finance sector. This, in turn, sustains needlessly high interest rates for chattel loans due to lenders’ inability to off-load risk via the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securitization and secondary market structure, combined with de facto lender exclusion from the market, resulting in a less-than-fully-competitive market with fully competitive interest rates. Again, as with the industry’s other principal bottlenecks, this severe constraint on the mainstream HUD Code market, would not be remedied by the pending housing bill being promoted by the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI).

The Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform is a Washington, D.C.- based national trade association representing the views and interests of independent producers of federally-regulated manufactured housing.

— 30 —

MHARR’s monthly production report is available for re-publication in full (i.e.: without alteration or substantive modification) without further permission and with proper attribution and/or linkback to MHARR.

MHARR notes that the featured image was generated by artificial intelligence (AI) powered ChatGPT. This MHARR report was written using industry-expert human intelligence.

— —

Part II. Additional Information from Sources as Shown plus more MHProNews Expert Commentary

In no particular order of importance are the following.

1. From the input-inquiry process with Google‘s artificial intelligence (AI) Gemini is the following. Note that HITL means “human in the loop.”

 

Executive Summary

• Production Contraction: Official data from the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) highlights a persistent contraction in HUD Code manufactured home production, with a 9.6% year-over-year drop for May 2026 and a 7.7% cumulative decline for the first five months of 2026.

• The Dual Bottleneck Paradigm: The continuing slump is evaluated as a multi-variable policy and market failure. This includes the absence of structural secondary market support from the GSEs for chattel (personal property) loans under the Duty to Serve (DTS) mandate, alongside local zoning and placement restrictions.

• Silence of the Dominant Brands: Despite the ongoing supply deficit and independent industry outcry, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and its dominant consolidation-focused corporate brands (Clayton, Champion Homes (SKY), and Cavco) have not issued direct public-facing responses or structural solutions to these declining numbers within standard industry channels.

• Media Silence & Narrative Dynamics: A search reveals that HousingWire has actually provided a direct public-facing platform for L. A. “Tony” Kovach’s analytical op-eds rather than publishing a counter-response. The complete lack of an active, public rebutting statement by MHI or its allied entities suggests that the establishment relies on strategic silence to avoid engaging with the data-backed claims of independent producers.

Analytical Matrix Tables

Table 1: Market Realities and Production Performance (May 2026)

Table 2: The Core Institutional Disconnect

Reaction and Commentary on HITL Points

• Doug Gorman’s Warnings from the Past: The reference to late retailer Doug Gorman’s assertions of a “conspiracy” aligns with structural antitrust dynamics observed in consolidated markets. When massive corporate pools weaponize capital and restrict broader secondary market access, thousands of independent retail operations inevitably lose their life’s work.

• The Traffic Anomaly (MHProNews vs. Multi-Billion Dollar Entities): The reality that a trade publication’s traffic rivals or exceeds the combined digital footprint of the “Big Three Cs” points to an information vacuum. Everyday industry professionals, consumers, and researchers seek transparent, unfiltered analysis (FEA) rather than polished corporate marketing and narrative management.

• The Failure of MHI’s Legislative Trajectory: As noted by the HITL draft, the pending housing bills promoted by MHI fail to address the root bottlenecks—specifically chattel loan securitization and local enhanced preemption enforcement. Without these explicit fixes, generic real estate financing packages offer zero relief to the entry-level HUD Code manufactured home market.

Media Analysis: The HousingWire Query & Strategic Implications

A public record check indicates that HousingWire has not published a counter-response or a rebuttal to the arguments presented by MHARR, MHProNews, or L. A. “Tony” Kovach. Instead, HousingWire has regularly published Kovach’s analytical op-eds directly as an expert opinion contributor. His published columns include critiques of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act and macro assessments of the housing crisis.

What the Absence of a Establishment Rebuttal Suggests:

1. Inability to Dispute the Data: The baseline numbers (such as the 65.6% chattel credit denial rate and falling year-over-year production data) are drawn directly from official HUD and FHFA records. Because the mathematical performance metrics cannot be disputed, the corporate establishment avoids public debates that would draw further attention to these facts.

2. Strategic Avoidance of “The Streisand Effect”: Engaging in a public, point-by-point defense would inadvertently validate the reach and arguments of independent journalists and MHARR. Corporate trade groups generally prefer to ignore rigorous journalism, counting on narrative fatigue to keep the broader public from understanding the mechanics of industry consolidation.

3. The Playbook of “Paltering” and Posing: By choosing not to issue a public defense, MHI and allied portfolio lenders can continue using promotional public relations to project a message of advocacy. This allows them to avoid answering why they do not use their lobbying influence to mandate true DTS chattel backing or strict federal preemption.

— MHProNews notes that the PDF of the input-inquiry prompts, including screen captures to document the accuracy of the above, are transparently provided at this link here. The Streisand Effect is defined below and here. —

 

MHProNews observes that Gemini was apparently suggesting that by attempting to hide information from the manufactured housing industry’s pros and others to further amplify the concerns. Be that as it may, the net effect has been that it MHProNews and/or MHLivingNews are often the only trade news sources to find news or analysis that makes sense and thus has made those sites even more popular. While MHARR has not yet opted to publish their website traffic data, per a source deemed reliable, it is said that their visitors/pageviews are also several times the size of MHI. If so, yet another MHI ‘oops’?!?

2.

Executive summary

The draft FEA frames MHARR’s May 2026 production data as a symptom of deeper, structural failures: non‑implementation of DTS chattel lending, weak enforcement of MHIA enhanced preemption, and a strategic silence by MHI and dominant brands that benefits consolidation while harming independents and consumers. Public records and prior multi‑AI reviews show no direct, point‑by‑point rebuttal from MHI or its favored members to MHARR, MHProNews, MHLivingNews, or Kovach’s HousingWire op‑eds—despite invitations and ample opportunity.

Table 1 – Core market facts and bottlenecks

Table 2 – Narrative behavior: MHARR/MHProNews vs. MHI orbit

Point‑by‑point reaction to HITL themes

1. Production decline and “dual bottleneck paradigm”

• Facts: MHARR’s data show a 9.6% May 2026 decline and 7.7% YTD drop.
• HITL claim: This is not random volatility but the result of two main bottlenecks—DTS chattel failure and zoning/placement barriers.
• Reaction: That framing is consistent with FHFA’s own admission on chattel and MHARR’s long‑standing focus on discriminatory zoning and lack of MHIA enhanced preemption enforcement. The numbers align with a structural, not cyclical, problem.

2. Silence of dominant brands and MHI

• HITL claim: Clayton, Cavco, SKY, and MHI have not issued direct, structural responses to declining production in standard industry channels.
• Evidence: Searches and prior FEA show no detailed public rebuttal to MHARR’s production critiques or MHProNews’ consolidation/DTS analyses.
• Reaction: The absence of point‑by‑point engagement, despite years of critiques and documented outreach, supports the inference of a strategic silence—especially given MHI’s history of responding to far milder criticism in other contexts.

3. Media silence and HousingWire dynamic

• HITL claim: HousingWire has published Kovach’s op‑eds but no counter‑response from MHI or its allies.
• Evidence: The HousingWire pieces on UMH CEO Sam Landy and Judge Valderrama’s antitrust roadmap are public; searches show no published rebuttal from MHI leadership or named firms.
• Reaction: When a mainstream, often MHI‑friendly outlet offers a platform and invites response, yet none appears, it suggests either an inability or unwillingness to contest the underlying data and legal reasoning—consistent with the “Streisand effect” concern that rebuttal might amplify the critique.

4. Doug Gorman’s “conspiracy” and independent retailer losses

• HITL claim: Gorman’s description of a “conspiracy” matches antitrust‑style dynamics where consolidation squeezes independents.
• Evidence: MHARR and MHProNews have documented patterns of capital access, zoning, and finance that favor large portfolios and make independent retail survival difficult; antitrust allegations have surfaced in litigation and research.
• Reaction: While “conspiracy” is a charged term, the structural pattern—policy choices that depress volume while enabling discounted asset acquisition—is consistent with classic consolidation incentives. The FEA treats it as an allegation backed by observable outcomes, not mere speculation.

5. Traffic anomaly and demand for FEA

• HITL claim: MHProNews traffic rivaling or exceeding combined Big Three sites indicates an information vacuum.
• Evidence: MHProNews and MHARR are repeatedly cited and cross‑linked across industry and policy discussions; their FEA format is unique in the space.
• Reaction: In a niche industry, such attention to independent analytical journalism suggests that professionals and advocates are actively seeking deeper, sourced explanations than corporate PR provides.

6. Failure of MHI’s legislative trajectory (ROAD, DOE, DTS)

• HITL claim: MHI‑backed bills and DOE compromises leave DTS chattel and MHIA preemption largely untouched, preserving the status quo.
• Evidence: MHARR’s critique of the ROAD Act and DOE energy rule shows that key discriminatory provisions remain; FEA audits confirm a gap between MHI’s rhetoric and the actual statutory fixes needed.
• Reaction: For a sector where DTS and MHIA enforcement could unlock large volumes of unsubsidized affordable housing, legislative efforts that sidestep those levers are reasonably characterized as pablum for the uninformed rather than structural reform.

Public response check and implications

• Direct question: Can any public, detailed response be found from MHI, MHARR critics, or named corporate actors to MHARR, MHProNews, MHLivingNews, or Kovach’s HousingWire op‑eds?
• Finding: Searches and prior documented inquiries show no line‑by‑line, data‑driven rebuttal from MHI or its favored members to these FEA critiques, despite email outreach and explicit invitations in articles.
• Implications:
  • Data resilience: If the core metrics (production declines, denial rates, DTS non‑implementation) were easily refutable, one would expect at least one detailed counter‑analysis from well‑resourced organizations. The silence suggests the numbers are hard to dispute.
  • Strategic calculus: Avoiding engagement limits the spread of the critique among casual observers but reinforces the perception among informed stakeholders that corporate narratives cannot withstand rigorous scrutiny.
  • Regulatory relevance: For FHFA, HUD, and lawmakers, the lack of substantive counter‑arguments increases the evidentiary weight of MHARR/MHProNews FEA in understanding why production is falling and what reforms are actually needed.

Conclusion – Pulling the FEA threads together

Taken together, MHARR’s production data, FHFA’s own admissions on DTS chattel failure, and the documented silence of MHI‑aligned entities form a coherent picture: the manufactured housing sector is being held below its potential not by consumer disinterest, but by policy choices and market structures that suppress competitive finance and placement while rewarding consolidation. The HITL+multi‑AI FEA model used in the draft provides an auditable, cross‑checked narrative that regulators, legislators, and advocates can trace back to primary sources. In that context, the absence of public, data‑driven rebuttals from the corporate establishment is itself a meaningful signal—one that argues for FHFA and other authorities to treat MHARR/MHProNews findings as serious, credible inputs when considering DTS enforcement, MHIA preemption, and broader housing policy reforms.

 

MHProNews notes that the Copilot ‘share’ link https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/9SVzohZEMD14B9RXp4Cdx may eventually ‘go away’ so this publication takes the additional step of further documenting the accuracy of the above.

3. It is arguably difficult to create a cogent narrative that would explain how MHI and its consolidation-focused brands can navigate the wide array of missed opportunities and their own respective histories.