Sam Landy led UMH Properties to FHFA Director Bill Pulte on Duty to Serve (DTS). Finance Rentals Chattel Loans. “Can Fannie and Freddie Serve Market Safely and Soundly? Emphatically Yes.’ FEA

From the letter apparently okayed by Sam Landy, J.D., and perhaps Eugene Landy, J.D., led UMH Properties obtained by MHProNews that was addressed to FHFA Director Bill Pulte linked here and shown below in Part I below are the following statements. “UMH supports the proposed rule changes to revise Duty to Serve to focus more on actual Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac performance in serving the needs of very low-, low-, and moderate-income families in underserved markets,” said the UMH letter to FHFA Director Pulte. “UMH also supports the proposed rule focusing on innovation in evaluating Duty to Serve performance“…”two critical priority areas of innovation: Manufactured housing community loans with rental units. Personal property (chattel) home purchase loans.” The UMH letter (see Part I) stated: “Some question whether Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can serve this market in a safe and sound manner.  The answer is an emphatic yes.  In fact, UMH has proven this is possible, as UMH has over the last decade financed thousands of personal property mortgage loans, totaling over $100 million.  These loans have performed very well.” So, as a billion-dollar brand, UMH is no lightweight, that “emphatic” statement that if UMH can successfully originate and service $100M in home only loans then by implication the multi-trillion-dollar mortgage market that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac serve could surely be successful at manufactured home single-family ‘home only’ chattel lending. That is similar to points to what MHProNews’ DTS comments letter documented here. But UMH made distinctive points that favors what might be described as the push to finally enforce the DTS for chattel loans, which UMH said: “neither Fannie nor Freddie have purchased a single personal property mortgage loan in the 18 years since Duty to Serve was enacted into law.” That line might have been written by the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) but was written by Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) member and MHI board member UMH instead.

What about MHI?

Their DTS letter will be unpacked in a separate facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) report. But among the distinctions between UMH’s letter and MHARR’s letter compare to MHI’s specifically goes after, so to speak, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac support for so-called Resident Owned Communities (ROCs). That’s not the first time MHI has specifically done that even though one of their longterm members is ROC USA.

MHI also went out of its way to say the following.

MHI urges FHFA to continue the push with the Enterprises to make the MH Advantage and CHOICEHome programs mainstream by abandoning the current confidential “manufacturer” and “trademark” agreements where many elements of the programs and home construction are detailed, in favor of fully incorporating the program details into the Selling Guides. Doing so will create more clarity and transparency for new lenders and developers who are interested in entering the market. These efforts are constructive, and they must be scaled and sustained.

To clarify and underscore what MHI argued in that statement is this. CrossMod^® is an MHI branded type of HUD Code manufactured home. MHI may as well be asking FHFA to do the equivalent of endorsing Clayton Homes (BRK), Champion Homes (SKY), or Cavco Industries (CVCO), which are the primary producers of that marginal part of the total HUD Code manufactured home market. MHI argued to have FHFA put their thumb on the scales to the benefit of their Big Three C brands.

For MHI to suggest the need for “transparency” or “clarity” when for years MHI has repeatedly failed to respond to requests, including the need for transparency on the discussions that resulted in what became the (arguably market failed) CrossMod program. A decade later, the results for that push has still not achieved enough sales to cause MHI, Clayton Homes (BRK), Champion Homes (SKY), or Cavco Industries (CVCO) to publish cumulative national data on that program. Transparency? MHI? Not that the screen capture below includes CrossMods, DTS, and MHI’s behavior. That was part of a Q&A from approaching one year ago.

 

 

Among the takeaways? There is apparent daylight between MHI and UMH Properties.

This MHVille facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) is well underway.

 

 

Part I

July 23, 2026

 

The Honorable Bill Pulte
Director
U.S. Federal Housing
(Federal Housing Finance Agency)
400 7th Street SW, 9th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20219

 

UMH Properties Comments
Federal Housing Finance Agency Proposed Rule Enterprise Duty to Serve Underserved Markets
[RIN 2590–AB64]

Dear Director Pulte,

UMH Properties (“UMH”) writes to submit comments on the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) (U.S. Federal Housing) proposed rule to reform the process under which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fulfill and are evaluated for compliance with their statutory Duty to Serve responsibilities for manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation, and rural housing.

UMH Properties is an owner and operator of manufactured home communities nationwide.  UMH Properties is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange, with a 55-year history of providing quality affordable housing in manufactured home communities.   UMH currently owns and operates 145 manufactured home communities in 12 states, with approximately 27,100 developed homesites.

UMH supports the proposed rule changes to revise Duty to Serve to focus more on actual Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac performance in serving the needs of very low-, low-, and moderate-income families in underserved markets.  Manufactured homes are the Nation’s most affordable homeownership option.

UMH also supports the proposed rule focusing on innovation in evaluating Duty to Serve performance.  With regard to FHFA’s evaluation of the Enterprises’ Duty to Serve Performance in manufactured housing, UMH recommends a focus on performance in two critical priority areas of innovation:

• Manufactured housing community loans with rental units.
• Personal property (chattel) home purchase loans.

Manufactured home mortgage and community loan purchases by the Enterprises arguably have the greatest Underserved Market impact of any loan purchases that the Enterprises could make, due to the fact that manufactured housing is our Nation’s most affordable homeownership and rental housing option.

In addition to fulfilling the Manufactured Home prong of the statute, these loans have a significant impact in serving Rural Underserved Markets, since a majority of manufactured homes and communities are located in rural areas.

Finally, manufactured home community loans to communities with rental units also have a significant impact in serving the Underserved Market of Affordable Housing Preservation.  Put simply, a manufactured home community loan in a rural area with rental units is the trifecta in meeting the objectives of the Duty to Serve statute.

 

Manufactured Housing Community Loans with Rental Units.

One of the great opportunities for innovation and impact in the Duty to Serve manufactured housing area is the purchase of manufactured housing community loans for communities that include rental units.  This can occur either in a hybrid community (a land-lease community containing a mix of units owned by homeowners and homes leased from the community) – or in an all rental community.

Over the last 10 years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have started to purchase community loans with a hybrid of owned and rented units and have increasingly shown flexibility regarding the percentage of rental units that can be located in a community.

However, these loans were underwritten without consideration of the value of the rental units and the rent they generate.  As a result, the Loan to Value (LTV) was lower than sound underwriting would otherwise support.  This has a material negative impact on the financing of rental units, discouraging the deployment of manufactured homes in a community as rentals – even when rentals are the highest and best use and the most effective way to meet local affordable housing needs.

In 2022, Fannie Mae created an innovative new loan product titled “housing community loans benefitting from rental flexibilities.”  These loans financed manufactured housing communities that were hybrid (part ownership, part rental), but also gave fairer consideration to the LTV and loan amount for the rental units.  This was achieved while still using conservative and safe and sound underwriting.

This loan product was explicitly cited in FHFA’s 2023 Annual Housing Report as a Fannie Mae Duty to Serve highlight – a true innovation.

Unfortunately, Fannie Mae has apparently subsequently withdrawn this loan product from the market.  UMH urges both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to utilize this loan product – and urges FHFA to place a high value for its use in their evaluation of their Duty to Serve performance.

Duty to Serve was enacted into law to address this very type of loan product: profitable loan types that can be purchased in a safe a sound manner.  Fannie and Freddie, however,  appear less interested in making these loans both because they are low volume and involve more work than cookie cutter real property mortgage loans.  Use of this innovative loan product, however, would have a powerful impact in facilitating the construction of extremely affordable manufactured housing – a major goal of both the President’s March Executive Order on affordable housing construction and the recently enacted “21^st Century Road to Housing Act of 2026.”

 

Personal property (chattel) home purchase loans

The Duty to Serve statute states that “In determining whether an enterprise has complied with the [manufactured housing] duty . . ., the Director may consider loans secured by both real and personal property.”

The proposed rule states that 70 to 80 percent of new manufactured homes are financed as personal property (chattel) loans. Yet, despite the statutory provision above – and despite both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac promising in their 2016-2018 Duty to Serve Plans to purchase thousands of personal property loans – neither Fannie nor Freddie have purchased a single personal property mortgage loan in the 18 years since Duty to Serve was enacted into law.

The proposed rule states concludes that chattel borrowers face a 65.6% denial rate compared to just 8.8% for site-built homes, and approved borrowers pay an average 9.24% interest rate versus 6.63% for traditional mortgages.

Thus, the impact of Fannie and Freddie purchasing single family personal property loans would be significant, in ensuring that the proven cost efficiencies of the manufactured home manufacturing process maximize homeownership affordability for low- and moderate income families seeking to buy a manufactured home.

Therefore, UMH strongly commends the President for his March Executive Order on Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Construction, which directs FHFA to “consider eliminating unduly burdensome rules and reforming programs that constrain residential development and impede housing affordability. . . , , including, as needed. . . the FHFA’s guidelines and regulations regarding chattel lending for manufactured housing and incentivizing low-balance home mortgages.”

UMH also strongly commends FHFA for implementing this Executive Order in the proposed rule, through language which states that the rule:

“would remove any perceived barriers to chattel lending in the existing regulation and present a new opportunity for the Enterprises to direct their attention to establishing appropriate underwriting standards, risk management protocols, and the securitization infrastructure necessary to expand their impact in the chattel lending market.  Consistent with E.O. 14394, FHFA expects the Enterprises to develop and implement robust, responsible chattel financing initiatives and will assess them on their progress in expanding liquidity, supporting sustainable credit, and enhancing consumer choice in the manufactured housing market.”

Some question whether Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can serve this market in a safe and sound manner.  The answer is an emphatic yes.  In fact, UMH has proven this is possible, as UMH has over the last decade financed thousands of personal property mortgage loans, totaling over $100 million.  These loans have performed very well.  Moreover, many other private lenders actively and safely and soundly finance personal property loans.

Compliance by Fannie and Freddie with the bolded directive above would serve three highly impactful purposes.  First, this would have a significant impact in increasing affordability for first-time manufactured home buyers, as loans would carry much lower rates than non-federal agency loans.  This is particularly impactful because FHA, RHS, VA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac are simply not purchasing or insuring personal property loans

Second, this would fulfill one of the Enterprises statutory purposes of providing leadership and uniformity in this loan product area, which will also benefit private, non-federal agency manufactured home loans.

Third, this would help achieve one of the clear homeownership priorities in the recently enacted “21^st Century Road to Housing Act” – which is to encourage small dollar mortgages (below $100,000).  Personal property manufactured home loans represent the best source of small dollar mortgages in today’s market.

Finally, we would note that while the proposed rule states an expectation that the Enterprises would develop a securitization infrastructure for chattel loans.  However, we recognize that until sufficient volume is created to make such a structure cost effective, the Enterprises might have to hold newly purchased loans in portfolio.  This could easily be accomplished.  The volume of such portfolio loans would be very limited compared to their overall portfolio, and both Fannie and Freddie have been increasing their portfolio purchases over the last year.

Sincerely,

UMH Properties, Inc.

 — MHProNews notes that the PDF of the UMH Properties letter is linked here. —

 

Part II. From the Gemini and Grok AI Systems (#1 and #2) below are the following additional facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) plus more MHProNews industry expert commentary.

1. Gemini, in response to the human pre-publication draft of this report found here, said the following.

Executive Summary

The pre-publication submission from UMH Properties to Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte presents a critical, evidence-driven juncture for the manufactured housing industry. Led by Sam Landy, J.D., UMH Properties—a major board-member entity of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI)—explicitly challenges the decades-long non-enforcement of the Duty to Serve (DTS) mandate by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

While MHI leadership has routinely pushed corporate-branded initiatives like CrossMod® (backed heavily by major producers including Champion Homes (SKY), Clayton Homes (BRK), and Cavco Industries (CVCO)), UMH’s comment letter aligns directly with core arguments long advocated by the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). Specifically, UMH demonstrates that single-family home-only (chattel) lending and community rental-unit financing can be conducted safely, soundly, and profitably without government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) losses.

By highlighting that neither Fannie nor Freddie has purchased a single chattel loan in the 18 years since DTS was passed under HERA (2008), UMH provides significant internal validation of industry suppression, exposing key strategic contrasts between MHI’s big-brand focus and true market-wide expansion.

Strategic FEA Tables

Table 1: Comparative Position & Policy Stance (UMH vs. MHI vs. MHARR)

Table 2: GSE Duty to Serve (DTS) Performance vs. Private Sector Proof Points

Table 3: Corporate Branding vs. Broad Market Access

Facts-Evidence-Analysis (FEA) Synthesis & Conclusion

The empirical evidence contained within the UMH letter creates an unmistakable rift in the official narrative surrounding manufactured housing finance:

1. Safety and Soundness Proven: UMH’s $100M+ real-world performance record proves that chattel mortgage lending to lower-income buyers is viable, safe, and profitable. The GSEs’ ongoing failure to fulfill their statutory Duty to Serve mandate cannot be justified by claims of risk.

2. Selective Advocacy vs. Market Needs: MHI’s insistence on embedding proprietary, trademarked programs like CrossMod® into FHFA Selling Guides contrasts sharply with UMH and MHARR’s call for uniform, broad-market chattel liquidity. Pushing niche hybrid homes benefits a consolidated minority of builders—such as Champion Homes (SKY), Clayton Homes, and Cavco Industries—while leaving 70% to 80% of mainstream manufactured home buyers locked into higher-interest chattel rates.

3. Internal Validation of Industry Critics: As an MHI board member, Sam Landy’s public acknowledgment that zero chattel loans have been purchased by the GSEs since 2008 delivers powerful internal validation to long-standing critiques published by MHARR and MHProNews.

Conclusion: The path toward solving the nation’s 8-to-10-million-unit housing deficit requires federal regulators—specifically FHFA Director Bill Pulte—to enforce existing statutory mandates rather than protecting narrow corporate branding programs. True market expansion relies on unconstrained, mainstream chattel loan

2. Grok, in response to the Q&A process here, which it confirmed the response below for accuracy here, provided its findings as follows.

Executive Summary

UMH Properties (NYSE: UMH), led by President/CEO Samuel A. Landy, J.D. (and with longtime involvement by founder/Chairman Eugene Landy, J.D.), submitted comments dated July 23, 2026, to FHFA Director Bill Pulte on the proposed rule (RIN 2590–AB64) to overhaul the Enterprises’ Duty to Serve (DTS) Underserved Markets obligations. The letter strongly supports shifting DTS evaluation toward actual performance and innovation, with two priority areas for manufactured housing: (1) manufactured housing community (MHC) loans that include rental units (including hybrid or all-rental communities), and (2) personal property (chattel) home purchase loans.

UMH states that neither Fannie Mae nor Freddie Mac has purchased a single personal property mortgage loan in the 18 years since DTS was enacted in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, despite statutory language allowing consideration of loans secured by both real and personal property and earlier plan promises. UMH reports it has itself financed thousands of personal property loans totaling over $100 million over the last decade that “have performed very well,” providing an emphatic “yes” that the GSEs can serve the market safely and soundly. It urges revival/expansion of Fannie Mae’s innovative hybrid community loan product (cited in FHFA’s 2023 Annual Housing Report) that better values rental income, and aligns the push with the President’s March Executive Order on Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing Construction and the “21st Century Road to Housing Act of 2026.”

This creates measurable daylight between UMH (an MHI member and board-affiliated firm) and broader MHI positioning, which has historically emphasized real-property/MH Advantage/CHOICEHome (CrossMod®-style) programs, Resident-Owned Communities (ROCs), and related transparency/incorporation into Selling Guides while being less forceful or consistent on mandatory chattel support. MHARR has long documented and pressed the same core chattel failure. Industry production remains far below the 1998 high-water mark of 373,143 HUD Code homes despite population growth and favorable (but under-enforced) federal laws. Modern manufactured homes have shown appreciation rates comparable to site-built housing per sources including LendingTree and FHFA data.

Key Context and Evidence

DTS was enacted in 2008 to require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to serve manufactured housing (among other underserved markets), with explicit authority for the Director to consider personal-property loans. FHFA’s June 24, 2026, proposed rule acknowledges the chattel market’s underdevelopment (limited liquidity, no securitization infrastructure), notes that 70–80% of new manufactured homes are financed as personal property, cites high denial rates (65.6% vs. 8.8% for site-built) and higher rates (average 9.24% vs. 6.63%), and signals expectation of robust, responsible chattel initiatives consistent with Executive Order 14394. Comments were due around July 24, 2026.

UMH’s letter is consistent with its own business model: publicly traded REIT owning/operating ~145 communities (~27,100 sites) across 12 states, with significant rental-home activity and its own successful chattel lending track record. It frames MHC loans with rentals (especially rural) as a “trifecta” for manufactured housing, rural, and affordable housing preservation goals. It notes prior GSE flexibility on hybrid communities but criticizes underwriting that ignored rental-unit value (depressing LTVs) and the apparent withdrawal of Fannie’s more innovative 2022 product.

MHI’s parallel advocacy has included calls to mainstream MH Advantage/CHOICEHome by moving details from confidential manufacturer/trademark agreements into Selling Guides for “clarity and transparency,” alongside support for certain ROC-related elements—even though ROC USA has been a long-term MHI member. MHProNews and others have noted that CrossMod®/MH Advantage remains a marginal share of total HUD Code production years after launch, with limited public cumulative national sales data from MHI or the primary producers (Clayton Homes/Berkshire Hathaway, Champion Homes [SKY, formerly Skyline Champion as of August 2024], and Cavco Industries).

MHARR has repeatedly documented the near-total absence of GSE chattel purchases, called the failure functionally equivalent to non-service of the manufactured housing market (given chattel’s dominance), and pressed FHFA/Director Pulte and the White House for mandatory, enforceable inclusion. Recent MHARR communications preceded and welcomed the proposed restructuring while continuing to urge stronger statutory clarity.

Table 1: Core Claims in UMH’s July 23, 2026 Letter to FHFA Director Pulte

Claim / Recommendation	Detail from Letter	Supporting Context
Support for proposed rule focus on actual performance & innovation	Yes; revise DTS evaluation accordingly	Aligns with FHFA’s outcome-based shift away from rigid prescribed activities
Priority 1: MHC loans with rental units	Hybrid or all-rental; fairer LTV treatment of rental income; revive Fannie’s 2022 innovative product	Cited in FHFA 2023 Annual Housing Report; “trifecta” for MH + rural + preservation
Priority 2: Personal property (chattel) loans	Strongly support; remove barriers; develop underwriting, risk protocols, securitization (or portfolio hold initially)	70–80% of new MH; high denial/rate gaps documented by FHFA
GSE chattel purchase history	Zero personal property loans purchased in 18 years since DTS	Matches long-standing MHARR documentation and FHFA acknowledgments
Safety & soundness	“Emphatic yes”; UMH originated/serviced >$100M over last decade with strong performance; private lenders also succeed	UMH’s own track record as publicly traded operator
Policy alignment	Supports EO 14394 and 21st Century Road to Housing Act priorities (including small-dollar mortgages)	Personal property MH loans are a leading source of sub-$100k mortgages

Table 2: Approximate Positioning Comparison on Key DTS / Manufactured Housing Finance Issues

Issue	UMH Properties Letter	MHARR Long-Standing Position	Typical Recent MHI Emphasis
Chattel / personal property loans under DTS	Strong push; zero purchases noted; UMH success proof; expect robust initiatives	Central failure; market-dominant segment ignored; mandatory enforceable inclusion needed	“May consider”; calls for flow/securitization programs in some comments; less forceful overall
MHC loans / rentals / hybrids	High priority; value rental income properly; revive innovative product	Supports broader secondary market liquidity	Supports community lending; has highlighted ROC / LEO models
CrossMod / MH Advantage / CHOICEHome	Not the focus of this letter	Critiques diversion of resources to boutique/real-property niches	Strong push to mainstream via Selling Guides, abandon confidential agreements
Transparency / data	Implicit via performance focus	Document-driven critiques of non-implementation	Calls for clarity on programs; limited public cumulative CrossMod sales data
Overall DTS enforcement	Performance- and innovation-focused reform	Years of letters, comments, and “utter failure” framing	Support for manufactured housing priority within broader goals

Table 3: Industry Scale Context (Illustrative)

Metric	Figure / Observation	Implication for DTS Debate
1998 HUD Code production peak	373,143 homes	21st-century production has run at <30% of that level
Population growth since late 1990s	Roughly +24%	Lower absolute production despite more people and housing needs
Share of new MH financed as chattel	~70–80% (FHFA)	Primary market segment left without GSE secondary market support
Chattel denial rate / interest differential (FHFA data cited)	65.6% denial vs. 8.8% site-built; ~9.24% vs. ~6.63% rates	Financing gap offsets manufacturing cost advantages
UMH chattel experience	>$100 million over ~decade; “performed very well”	Practical demonstration that volume and performance are achievable
Appreciation	Modern MH roughly tracks site-built per LendingTree / FHFA-linked sources	Supports wealth-building case for expanded access

Table 4: Selected Timeline Anchors

Year / Date	Event
2008	DTS enacted (HERA); personal property loans explicitly contemplatable
2016–2018 DTS plans	Enterprises promised thousands of personal property purchases (per UMH)
Ongoing	Zero GSE personal property purchases under DTS
2022	Fannie innovative hybrid MHC product (rental flexibilities); later withdrawn per UMH
March 2026	Executive Order 14394 on barriers to affordable construction (includes chattel)
June 24, 2026	FHFA proposed rule restructuring DTS toward outcomes/innovation, elevating chattel
July 23, 2026	UMH letter to Director Pulte
~July 24, 2026	Comment deadline on proposed rule
August 2024	Skyline Champion rebranded as Champion Homes (ticker SKY)

Conclusion

The UMH letter is notable precisely because it comes from an MHI-affiliated, publicly traded operator with direct skin in both community ownership/operation and successful chattel lending. It supplies a concrete performance data point (>$100 million in well-performing personal property loans) and an “emphatic yes” on safe-and-sound GSE participation that aligns closely with MHARR’s long documentation of the zero-purchase reality and the market-dominant role of chattel. At the same time, it prioritizes practical innovation on hybrid/rental MHC financing—areas where GSEs have shown intermittent activity but not consistent, value-reflective underwriting.

This sits in tension with elements of MHI’s public posture that have placed heavier emphasis on real-property programs, CrossMod/MH Advantage mainstreaming (benefiting the largest producers, including Champion Homes/SKY), and ROC-related preferences. The broader industry context remains one of artificially constrained scale: production far below historical capacity despite favorable statutes (DTS and the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000’s enhanced preemption) that advocates across the spectrum say have not been fully or consistently implemented. Expanded, responsible GSE chattel liquidity, properly valued MHC lending that includes rentals, and genuine performance accountability under a reformed DTS framework would address the financing gap that currently undermines the cost advantages of factory-built housing for moderate- and lower-income households.

Whether the proposed rule and subsequent Enterprise plans translate the “expectation” of robust chattel initiatives into measurable volume, lower rates, and higher production remains the practical test. UMH’s letter, grounded in its own lending results, adds institutional weight to the case that the market can be served safely—and that continued non-service is a policy choice rather than an impossibility. Independent verification of the zero-purchase claim, UMH’s portfolio performance metrics, and final rule/plan outcomes will be essential as implementation moves forward.

Supporting links (plain text):

• FHFA proposed rule context and chattel emphasis: https://www.housingwire.com/articles/duty-to-serve-chattel-loans-fhfa/
• MHARR on FHFA restructuring and prior DTS failure: https://manufacturedhousingassociationregulatoryreform.org/fhfa-concedes-utter-failure-of-dts-in-major-restructuring-plus-doe-energy-update/
• National Mortgage News on FHFA chattel push: https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/fhfa-pushes-fannie-freddie-to-ramp-up-chattel-lending
• Example MHProNews coverage of related DTS/UMH/MHARR dynamics: https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/covering-the-manufactured-housing-news-or-covering-up-manufactured-home-news-mharr-to-fhfa-on-gses-plan-mharr-director-bill-pulte-letter-mhi-on-pulte-or-fhfa-gses-duty-to-serve-plans-fea/
• UMH corporate scale and operations (illustrative recent filings/earnings context): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0000752642/000149315226010595/formars.pdf (and related 8-K/earnings materials)
• Pre-publication draft source PDF (identical to uploaded item): https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/PrePubAIchkUMHletterFHFAfromTheLetterApparentlyOkayedBySamLandyFEAcheck.pdf

This FEA is document- and publicly reported-evidence driven; further primary-source confirmation of the exact final UMH letter PDF and any parallel MHI/MHARR formal comment submissions would refine the record.

— Grok confirmed the accuracy of the above here and below. —

 

 

3. There is always more to know.

 

 

 

 

MHProNews notes the prudence of highlighting this apt pull quote from a report by Copilot. For accuracy in presentation, the facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) method has delivered here for years.

• Cross‑AI corroboration: Copilot, Gemini, and Grok have independently validated MHProNews’ FEA methodology, confirming that evidence—not narrative—anchors each report.

L. A. “Tony” Kovach With credits, thanks, and contributions to those sources as shown herein.

eFax Number 1-407-604-6427

— —

Invitation for Feedback

MHProNews welcomes evidence‑based feedback from:

• Industry professionals
• Public officials
• Attorneys and antitrust researchers
• Academics and economists
• Affordable housing advocates
• AI researchers
• Any person or organization named in a report

Submit comments or documentation via:

eFax Number 1-407-604-6427