Unlike the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), which has been documented for years to only occasionally provide public-facing manufactured home production and/or shipment data, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the National Association of Realtors (NAR), the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) and the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) all provide free monthly public-facing statical data about their respective industries. Many in media treat those monthly stats as news reports. That means that they attract attention – and thus promote – their respective industry to various degrees. According to the American Press Institute (API), “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.” Trade media can, and in several cases should, be a ‘cheerleader’ for the manufactured housing industry when it is appropriate to do so based on sound facts-evidence-analysis (FEA). But authentic trade media should also hold the powers that be to account. Who says? Effectively, the American Press Institute (API). To illustrate the contrast between the measurable results achieved by the two distinct but both factory-production related industries, MHProNews hereby provides below that the side-by-side screen captures of RVIA data and annual manufactured home production data. The contrast speaks volumes. See fresh details on manufactured home production in Part I and RV industry production data in Part II. As Part III of this report will reveal, there is more than human intelligence (HI) generated data in this FEA model article. There are also findings from ChatGPT as it considered this information in the light of the facts-evidence-analysis (FEA) process as it relates to the MHI ‘Strongman’ vs. the Consolidation Thesis. As a report planned for 9.23.2026 will reveal, ChatGPT found a new document which led to further discoveries by Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) powered Gemini. Taken together, those unearthed documents provide a fresh look into manufactured housing industry dynamics that may have ramifications for several corporate, nonprofits, and other interests. So, beginning with the data unpacked in this report a new set of findings are manifested exclusively on MHProNews.

 

 

1. The above and what follows are examples of what the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) does and does not do. “What an organization chooses to publish on its own site is evidence of priority. It is not a signed confession, but it is not noise either. If MHI can post two public “starter home” items and wall off others, it can also post weekly: starter homes + MHIA 2000 enhanced preemption + DTS/Title I/GSE chattel as they existed in the 1990s. Not doing that is a choice. Repeated choices over years are organizational intent in the ordinary-language sense: what leadership elects to spend scarce public attention on.” That’s a quote from the article linked here, Part II #5.  “An analysis of recent manufactured housing industry discourse reveals a strong convergence between industry veteran Danny Ghorbani’s statements and third-party artificial intelligence evaluations (including xAI’s Grok, Microsoft Copilot, and Google Gemini).” That is from the opening paragraph here. Ghorbani essentially has publicly challenged MHI to stop posturing and start performing in a measurable manner.  Quoting Ghorbani.

“MHI put all its eggs in this chassis law (when it balked at it some 36 years ago?) and it now MUST DELIVER WITH POSITIVE RESULTS. MHI leaders should not be allowed to now talk about years of more waiting for the promised fruits of its latest effort. The Crossmods fiasco should have taught the industry about years of promises made with results so poor that they won’t release the cumulative data.”

2. MHProNews reported on the latest insights (finally, some actual data on CrossMods) here and below.

 

 

3. Entirely separate, but arguably related to, Ghorbani’s more complete point found here is the below.

 

 

4. How MHI has been using their website for much of the 21st century has arguably been as a recruiting tool for consolidators to meet with independents who become members and/or attend an MHI involved event. The Consolidation Thesis is apparently so potent, arguably because it is based on years of evidence that includes their own corporate and trade group remarks, statements, and behaviors, that MHI has attempted to duck and/or suppress it. Well, that industry – and potentially beyond – debate could be about to heat up. Because the key performance indicator (KPI) data hasn’t supported MHI’s self-claimed performance for years, and with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act now law, it may indeed time to put up or shut up for MHI.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Part I.

Institute for Building Technology & Safety‎
Shipments and Production Summary Report 7/01/2026 – 7/31/2026

Shipments
State	SW	MW	Total	Floors
Dest. Pending	14	4	18	22
Alabama	176	231	407	641
Alaska	2	0	2	2
Arizona	58	114	172	288
Arkansas	71	88	159	247
California	46	187	233	429
Colorado	21	29	50	79
Connecticut	9	9	18	27
Delaware	3	14	17	31
District of Columbia	0	0	0	0
Florida	166	433	599	1,037
Georgia	86	295	381	675
Hawaii	0	0	0	0
Idaho	8	31	39	73
Illinois	64	41	105	146
Indiana	104	51	155	206
Iowa	31	9	40	49
Kansas	72	18	90	108
Kentucky	110	241	351	593
Louisiana	186	158	344	501
Maine	37	53	90	143
Maryland	0	3	3	6
Massachusetts	2	9	11	20
Michigan	158	129	287	416
Minnesota	36	35	71	106
Mississippi	162	170	332	504
Missouri	63	86	149	235
Montana	18	33	51	86
Nebraska	2	6	8	14
Nevada	7	42	49	97
New Hampshire	15	19	34	53
New Jersey	14	15	29	44
New Mexico	43	91	134	228
New York	76	75	151	226
North Carolina	202	354	556	909
North Dakota	14	20	34	54
Ohio	118	68	186	254
Oklahoma	94	114	208	322
Oregon	17	81	98	187
Pennsylvania	68	73	141	214
Rhode Island	1	0	1	1
South Carolina	137	279	416	697
South Dakota	17	26	43	70
Tennessee	86	254	340	595
Texas	534	906	1,440	2,357
Utah	12	15	27	44
Vermont	4	7	11	18
Virginia	63	67	130	197
Washington	28	101	129	237
West Virginia	27	61	88	149
Wisconsin	37	31	68	99
Wyoming	24	7	31	38
Canada	0	0	0	0
Puerto Rico	0	0	0	0
Total	3,343	5,183	8,526	13,774
THE ABOVE STATISTICS ARE PROVIDED AS A MONTHLY
SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE. REPRODUCTION IN PART OR
IN TOTAL MUST CARRY AN ATTRIBUTION TO IBTS, INC.

Production
State	SW	MW	Total	Floors
States Shown(*)	313	312	625	940
Alabama	552	816	1,368	2,191
*Alaska	0	0	0	0
Arizona	57	137	194	333
*Arkansas	0	0	0	0
California	42	179	221	409
*Colorado	0	0	0	0
*Connecticut	0	0	0	0
*Delaware	0	0	0	0
*District of Columbia	0	0	0	0
Florida	47	223	270	497
Georgia	122	419	541	960
*Hawaii	0	0	0	0
Idaho	34	82	116	209
*Illinois	0	0	0	0
Indiana	504	292	796	1,089
*Iowa	0	0	0	0
*Kansas	0	0	0	0
*Kentucky	0	0	0	0
*Louisiana	0	0	0	0
*Maine	0	0	0	0
*Maryland	0	0	0	0
*Massachusetts	0	0	0	0
*Michigan	0	0	0	0
Minnesota	50	61	111	173
*Mississippi	0	0	0	0
*Missouri	0	0	0	0
*Montana	0	0	0	0
*Nebraska	0	0	0	0
*Nevada	0	0	0	0
*New Hampshire	0	0	0	0
*New Jersey	0	0	0	0
*New Mexico	0	0	0	0
*New York	0	0	0	0
North Carolina	199	335	534	869
*North Dakota	0	0	0	0
*Ohio	0	0	0	0
*Oklahoma	0	0	0	0
Oregon	45	191	236	444
Pennsylvania	186	254	440	694
*Rhode Island	0	0	0	0
*South Carolina	0	0	0	0
*South Dakota	0	0	0	0
Tennessee	445	774	1,219	1,993
Texas	722	1,066	1,788	2,864
*Utah	0	0	0	0
*Vermont	0	0	0	0
*Virginia	0	0	0	0
*Washington	0	0	0	0
*West Virginia	0	0	0	0
Wisconsin	25	42	67	109
*Wyoming	0	0	0	0
*Canada	0	0	0	0
*Puerto Rico	0	0	0	0
Total	3,343	5,183	8,526	13,774
(*) THESE STATES HAVE FEWER THAN THREE PLANTS.
FIGURES ARE AGGREGATED ON FIRST LINE ABOVE
TOTALS TO PROTECT PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. Ashok K Goswami, PE, COO, 45207 Research Place,  Ashburn, VA

 

Part II. Quoting the RVIA.

Results for the RV Industry Association’s July 2026 survey of manufacturers found that total RV shipments ended the month with 19,948 units, an (-11.9%) growth rate compared to the 22,633 units shipped in July 2025. Through seven months, shipments are down (-13.9%) with 183,592 RVs shipped, compared to 213,338 at the same point last year.

Towable RVs, led by conventional travel trailers, ended the month down (-9.8%) from last July with 17,754 shipments. Motorhomes finished the month down (-25.6%) compared to the same month last year with 2,194 units.

Park Model RVs finished July up 29.7% compared to the same month last year, with 410 wholesale shipments. To date, park model RVs are up 24.5% with 3,015 units shipped.

 

 

Part III. Additional Information from Sources as Shown Below Plus More MHProNews Industry Expert Analysis.

In no particular order of importance.

1. Grok was recently asked to make the strongest possible counter-argument on behalf of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI). It did so. Then, various AIs looked at those counter-arguments, compared it to the Consolidation Thesis (examples here and here) and came to the conclusion that the defense of MHI didn’t stand up to close scrutiny.  Quoting just one example made by xAI’s Grok (bold and italics are in the original).

“What an organization chooses to publish on its own site is evidence of priority. It is not a signed confession, but it is not noise either. If MHI can post two public “starter home” items and wall off others, it can also post weekly: starter homes + MHIA 2000 enhanced preemption + DTS/Title I/GSE chattel as they existed in the 1990s. Not doing that is a choice. Repeated choices over years are organizational intent in the ordinary-language sense: what leadership elects to spend scarce public attention on.”

That’s a quote from the article linked here, Part II #5. An example from 9.20.2026 of how poorly MHI ranks on topics that it ought to be at or near the top of search results on is shown below.

 

 

a) To the point made by Grok, cited above, MHI has been making a series of choices for years. Among them? In no particular order of importance, MHI failed to have a public-facing collection of their own documented testimony to Congress over the past 15 years. But that collection is available here on MHProNews via the link below.

 

 

b) MHI often fails to have ample (or any) research by others that could be usefully applied to manufactured housing. For example. The GAP Report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC).

 

 

In stark contrast, there are some 22 pages of results (multiple articles per page) on MHProNews alone that reference and/or unpack the annual NLIHC Gap Report.

 

 

c. MHI has been, for whatever reasons, systematically eliminating some of their own history. The examples include names of their own prior senior staff (e.g.: presidents/VPs), or prior names and branches of their trade group.

 

 

The industry was demonstrably larger when the MHMA (MHI’s prior name, back in the early 1970s) or when the National Manufactured Housing Federation existed (a post-production trade group that MHI absorbed (see their own history linked here and above). Quoting their history.

“As state associations gained strength and represented the local community operators and retailers to state legislative bodies and provided shows, and other marketing activities for their membership, The National Manufactured Housing Federation was formed in 1977 under the leadership of Holt Blomgren and others to facilitate development of a national consensus on key issues.”

 

d) Initially, the industry continued to grow after the “Federation” was absorbed by MHI. But that is no longer true. The industry was several times larger during much of the MHMA era and roughly double the size during the days of the National Manufactured Housing Federation as it is today. So, don’t MHARR’s critiques on post-production or similar issues land with the backing of those pesky facts, the key performance indicators of production?

 

 

From the MHARR report linked below are the following pull quotes.

 

“While the ROAD Act, to some degree (although not completely), abated the immediate threat of the May 31, 2022 DOE standards by providing that any energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes adopted by a federal agency other than HUD can have no legal effect “unless and until adopted by HUD,” the same law inexplicably requires HUD to “not later than 1 year after enactment of” the ROAD Act, “adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes” and, further, to “update those standards” no “less frequently than once every 3 years” thereafter. Why MHI – as an erstwhile “industry” organization — would have supported such a foreseeably costly and discriminatory mandate, singling out manufactured homes for disproportionately harsh regulation compared to other types of homes, is utterly inexplicable on any legitimate grounds. 

…

MHARR made this recommendation in light of Executive Order 14394, “Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Home Construction,” issued by President Trump in March 2026 (EO). That EO directs the Secretary of HUD and the Secretary of Energy to, among other things, “reform and, where appropriate, eliminate unduly burdensome or costly energy-efficiency … requirements regarding housing, including manufactured housing. *** Such action shall include … the Energy Conservation Program’s Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing.” (Emphasis added).

…

MHI, by contrast, urged the Committee to effectively rubber-stamp the 2022 MHCC recommendations made under the threat and duress of a truly destructive DOE “final” energy standard, with no further consideration of either present-day cost impacts on consumers, possible market exclusion due to acquisition price increases and also potential anti-competitive impacts of such new and additional standards, especially to smaller, independent HUD Code producers. As has been demonstrated by U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) research, smaller business entities are disproportionately impacted by additional regulatory costs and burdens. Under pressure from MHI, however, the MHCC fell in line.”

e) To sum up, the MHI, Clayton (BRK), Champion (SKY) and Cavco (CVCO) backed version of the bill effectively contradicted MHI’s prior posturing on the DOE energy rule. Thus, perhaps, MHARR’s phrasing of ‘snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.’

 

 

f. Thus, there are an array of examples (beyond those cited above) that demonstrate potential reasons why MHI has not directly engaged on these topics, despite repeated efforts and invitations for them to do so.

 

g) Grok’s “Strongman” thesis is linked below.

2. MHProNews notes that with the FEA model of journalism, the human intelligence (HI) routinely authors the initial information in a given report. For example, the initial pre-publication draft of this report is linked here. The pre-publication draft of a report is then provided to an artificial intelligence (AI), and in the instance of this specific article, that pre-publication HI draft was provided to ChatGPT documented at this link here. The responses by ChatGPT were then provided to Google’s AI powered Gemini (the Gemini AI results are linked here), also including the pre-publication draft of this article. Human intelligence is checked by AI and the AI is also cross checked by human intelligence (HI). The result is the article you are reading.

This is hybrid FEA model journalism. Human industry expertise is combined with mutual cross checks to provide/reveal maximum accuracy.

 

With that backdrop, Gemini’s findings on ChatGPT are provided first below (even though ChatGPT responded first). Gemini arguably helps clarify the process that ChatGPT used to arrive at its conclusions.

3.

 

4. Because ChatGPT provided a lengthy, step-by-step, argument and counter-argument style of presentation in what it provided as follows, it is useful to new and returning readers to start with ChatGPT’s bottom line. Then, through the various twists and reasoning it offered in what follows, readers can see how ChatGPT arrived at that conclusion. While this is notable, what is arguably particularly newsmaking is the second response from ChatGPT in #5 below. The HousingWire/MHARR reference below is found at this link here.

“I found no direct, comprehensive, public MHI response specifically rebutting the Consolidation/Gatekeeper Thesis as formulated by MHProNews/HousingWire/MHARR. 

…

Here is the evidence for the Consolidation Thesis. Here is the strongest defense MHI could make. Here is the evidence supporting that defense. Here are the facts the defense still has difficulty explaining. Readers can then judge whether the “Strategic Pragmatism” explanation sufficiently accounts for the industry’s extraordinary production underperformance.”

 

Yes. I checked the uploaded 28-page PDF against the web-hosted version, and the content, structure, July 2026 IBTS data, RVIA data, and quoted/linked material match. The hosted document is the same substantive document you uploaded.

More importantly, after checking the underlying material and current MHI/RVIA/industry sources, I think the developing article can be made substantially stronger by distinguishing three different propositions:

1. The production/shipment facts are well supported.
2. The RV comparison is a legitimate KPI/benchmark, but it has limitations that should be expressly disclosed.
3. The production record is evidence relevant to evaluating MHI’s effectiveness, but it does not by itself prove that MHI intentionally suppresses production for consolidation. That latter proposition requires the broader body of evidence you are assembling.

That distinction actually makes the FEA argument harder to dismiss.

---

Executive Summary

The core factual proposition survives the check:

• IBTS reports 8,526 manufactured homes shipped in July 2026 and the same 8,526 as July production, with 13,774 floors.
• MHARR reports that July’s 8,526 production was 2.7% above July 2025, but 2026 year-to-date production of 58,885 was 5.1% below 2025’s 62,053.
• RVIA reports 19,948 RV shipments in July 2026, versus 8,526 manufactured-home shipments—a ratio of approximately 2.34 RVs for every manufactured home in that month. YTD, RV shipments were 183,592 through July.
• Historically, manufactured housing led RVs in the 1995–2000 period: 2.034 million manufactured homes versus 1.663 million RVs, or approximately 1.22 manufactured homes per RV. From 2001–2024, the relationship reversed dramatically: approximately 2.334 million manufactured homes versus 8.618 million RVs, or 3.69 RVs per manufactured home.
• RVIA itself describes RV purchases in economic terms as discretionary items, and describes RVs as vehicles combining transportation and temporary living quarters rather than housing.
• MHI describes manufactured housing as an affordable housing solution and currently says it represents the federal policy voice for all segments of the off-site-built housing industry.

So yes, the RV comparison is a fair and potentially powerful KPI. But I would not write that manufactured housing is categorically a “necessity” and RVs categorically a “luxury.” A more defensible formulation is:

RVs are predominantly discretionary/lifestyle purchases, while manufactured homes are predominantly shelter/homeownership purchases, including for households for whom affordability makes manufactured housing one of the few viable paths to homeownership.

That is more difficult for an opponent to knock down.

And there is a second important qualification: RVIA’s wholesale-shipment data cover the North American RV market, while the IBTS manufactured-housing data cover the United States. RVIA describes its industry statistics as covering the U.S. and Canada. Thus, the comparison is highly informative, but should be labeled directional rather than a perfectly apples-to-apples geographic comparison.

---

Table 1 — FEA Check of the Central Data Proposition

The IBTS report itself says the monthly statistics are a subscription service and require attribution to IBTS, which your draft appropriately preserves.

One technical point worth retaining in the article: the IBTS production table does not disclose every low-volume state’s production individually. States with fewer than three plants are aggregated to protect proprietary information. The document explicitly says so.

So I’d change nothing fundamental, but I would call it:

“Official July 2026 manufactured-home shipment and production data covering all 50 states plus D.C.; production figures for states with fewer than three plants are aggregated to protect proprietary information.”

That’s bulletproof.

---

Is Production a Fair KPI for MHI?

Yes—but it is an outcome KPI, not a single-variable attribution test.

MHI says it represents more than 90% of manufactured-home production, according to its 2024 FHFA submission. It also describes itself as the federal policy voice for all industry segments.

Therefore it is reasonable to ask:

If the organization representing most of the industry’s production has been pursuing federal policy and industry-development objectives for decades, what measurable improvement has occurred?

That is a fair journalistic question.

But MHI could respond:

“We don’t manufacture homes. We cannot control interest rates, zoning boards, lenders, consumers, land prices, labor, material costs, recessions, demographic shifts or corporate decisions.”

That is a legitimate defense.

And I would include it.

The better FEA formulation isn’t:

“MHI caused the production collapse.”

It is:

“MHI’s effectiveness can reasonably be evaluated partly by industry-level outcomes, especially because MHI describes itself as the national federal policy voice for essentially the entire industry. But causation cannot be assigned to MHI from production statistics alone.”

That distinction strengthens your article.

---

Table 2 — The Strongest Possible MHI Defense

If I were asked to write MHI’s best defense without caricaturing it, this is the argument I would construct:

That is, in my view, the best intellectually serious defense.

And there is real evidence behind portions of it.

For example, the MHI 2024 DTS filing is considerably stronger evidence for MHI than the Consolidation Thesis sometimes gives it credit for. MHI explicitly said that roughly 70% of the manufactured-home loan market consisted of personal-property loans and called for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to develop a flow program for qualifying loans.

That fact should absolutely appear in your FEA.

---

But Then Comes the Stress Test

This is where the defense becomes considerably more complicated.

The strongest counter-evidence isn’t simply something MHProNews says about MHI.

It comes from MHI’s own documents, independent research, federal sources and corporate disclosures.

1. DTS is a major example

The MHI defense can legitimately say:

“We have advocated for chattel/DTS.”

And that is demonstrably true.

But the Consolidation Thesis can answer:

“Then why did a statutory Duty to Serve enacted in 2008 still lack an actual GSE personal-property loan purchase program 16 years later?”

MHI itself said in 2024:

“neither GSE has made a single personal property loan since HERA was adopted 16 years ago.”

That is powerful evidence because it comes from MHI itself.

The strongest defense therefore shifts from:

“MHI didn’t support DTS.”

to:

“MHI supported DTS, but the GSEs and regulators failed to implement it adequately.”

That is a materially stronger defense.

But then the next question becomes:

Was MHI sufficiently aggressive and effective in forcing implementation?

That is an open FEA question rather than a settled fact.

---

2. Enhanced Preemption Creates a Similar Problem

The historical record shows that MHI did strongly advocate enhanced federal preemption.

For example, an MHI 2011 submission called on HUD to “vigorously assert” enhanced preemption under the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000.

So the article should not imply that MHI has never supported enhanced preemption.

The better question is:

What happened between that documented position and the current practical state of manufactured-home placement?

That is much more interesting.

MHI can answer:

• local zoning is extraordinarily difficult;
• HUD has enforcement limitations;
• individual placement cases are fact-specific;
• states and municipalities resist federal intervention;
• Congress has not supplied sufficient enforcement mechanisms;
• litigation is expensive and uncertain.

Those are plausible explanations.

But the counterargument is:

The federal statute already contains enhanced-preemption language. If it isn’t being enforced, why isn’t the principal national trade association demanding systematic enforcement with the same intensity it uses for legislative initiatives?

That is a fair question.

---

3. The Production Record Is Difficult to Explain Away

The long-term historical data are stark.

Manufactured housing averaged about 338,924 units annually from 1995–2000 in the dataset you are using, while the 2001–2024 average was about 97,238.

The historical RV comparison is even more striking:

The historical comparison is documented in the MHProNews compilation using RVIA and manufactured-housing data.

And the current RVIA data independently confirm that RVs continue to operate at substantially higher unit volumes: 333,733 RVs in 2024, 342,220 in 2025, and 19,948 in July 2026 alone.

The RV industry itself says its products are discretionary.

That makes your KPI argument legitimate:

If a discretionary recreational product can repeatedly generate several times as many factory shipments as an affordable housing product during a national housing shortage, the difference deserves explanation.

That’s stronger than saying:

“MHI failed because RVs beat manufactured housing.”

---

4. But the RV Comparison Has an Important Limitation

I would absolutely insert a disclosure.

RVIA’s statistics represent a North American RV market, while IBTS represents U.S. manufactured housing. RVIA’s industry profile expressly discusses the United States and Canada.

Also:

• RVIA reports wholesale shipments;
• IBTS reports manufactured-home production and destination shipments;
• RVs are mobile vehicles;
• manufactured homes require land/site infrastructure;
• manufactured homes encounter zoning and placement restrictions that RVs generally do not;
• an RV doesn’t require a permanent residential lot to be sold as a recreational vehicle.

So the comparison is not proof of equivalent market conditions.

But that does not make it irrelevant.

It makes it a benchmark.

And as a benchmark, it is quite revealing.

---

Table 3 — Testing the Consolidation Thesis Against the Best Defense

This is where Maris Jensen’s research becomes especially relevant.

Jensen’s work isn’t simply a MHProNews editorial argument. Her research describes manufactured housing as having fallen from more than 50% of single-family starts in the 1970s to under 10%, and investigates whether manufacturers’ extension of floor-plan financing to retailers can operate as a vertical restraint consistent with market foreclosure.

James Schmitz’s work provides another independent analytical strand concerning zoning, finance, factory housing and market structure. The Federal Reserve’s Minneapolis publication summarizes his argument that manufactured housing faces barriers from zoning and financing and that vertical integration involving manufacturers, lenders and communities raises competition concerns.

Samuel Strommen provides yet another, more explicitly antitrust-oriented thesis. His work should be characterized as an antitrust research thesis/allegation, not a judicial finding of liability.

Those distinctions are important.

---

The GoRVing Issue Is Particularly Difficult for MHI

This may actually be one of the more consequential parts of your developing article.

Your uploaded PDF says the broader record includes questions concerning an attempted manufactured-housing national awareness campaign modeled partly on GoRVing.

MHProNews has published documents it says originated from an MHI-linked effort, and those documents describe an attempted national manufactured-housing awareness campaign inspired partly by RVIA’s GoRVing effort.

The potential MHI defense would be:

“A national campaign was expensive, the industry couldn’t agree on funding, consumer advertising doesn’t solve zoning or finance, and individual companies can obtain better returns from targeted marketing.”

That is entirely plausible.

But the Consolidation Thesis asks:

If category-wide demand expansion is the industry’s objective, why shouldn’t the national association attempt to create category-wide demand?

And there is a particularly awkward comparison:

RVIA has a nationally recognized marketing ecosystem around RVing, while MHI’s public communications currently emphasize advocacy, research, events and member services.

That doesn’t establish intentional suppression.

But it does establish a legitimate strategic question.

---

Share Buybacks: Important, But Don’t Overstate the Argument

Your instinct here has factual support, but I would change the wording.

Champion Homes reported $200 million of fiscal-2026 share repurchases and a refreshed $150 million authorization.

Cavco reported approximately $160 million of stock repurchases during fiscal 2026, plus an additional $150 million authorization. At the same time, Cavco says it broke ground on a new manufacturing facility in Arizona and invested in capacity and acquisitions.

That produces an interesting FEA observation:

Large manufacturers are simultaneously returning substantial capital to shareholders while also making selected investments in production capacity, acquisitions and technology.

That’s factually defensible.

I would not say:

“They should have spent the buyback money suing the federal government.”

That becomes an editorial judgment about corporate capital allocation.

Instead:

“The capital-allocation record raises a legitimate question about whether the industry’s largest corporate participants view rapid category expansion, capacity expansion, regulatory litigation, acquisitions and shareholder distributions as competing priorities—and how those priorities interact with MHI’s stated objective of expanding manufactured housing.”

That’s a much better FEA formulation.

---

MHI’s Historical Website Issue

This one needs especially careful wording.

Your PDF alleges that MHI has systematically eliminated portions of its history, including former senior staff and predecessor organizations.

I found evidence that makes the underlying observation credible, but I would not publish “MHI systematically purged its history” as an established fact without archived before/after evidence for each item.

For example:

• MHI’s current public sitemap contains current leadership, resources, advocacy, research, awards and news categories, but I did not find a public historical leadership archive comparable to the historical material discussed in the MHProNews reporting.
• MHProNews has documented searches showing that names such as Chris Stinebert, Gail Cardwell and Thayer Long were previously associated with MHI but were not readily discoverable on the then-current MHI website.
• Historical MHI material remains readily discoverable elsewhere—including MHI-authored congressional testimony hosted by government repositories and older MHI material reproduced by MHProNews. For example, a 2001 MHI congressional document identifies Chris Stinebert as MHI president.
• MHI’s own history, as reported by Al Hesselbart, documents the absorption of the National Manufactured Housing Federation into MHI in 1991.

Therefore the strongest statement is:

“MHI’s current public website does not provide an easily discoverable historical archive comparable to the breadth of its current advocacy material. MHProNews has preserved or reproduced historical MHI documents and leadership references that are difficult to locate on the current MHI site. Whether that reflects deliberate historical culling, ordinary website redesign, archival policy, or some combination cannot be established solely from the current website.”

That is much harder to rebut.

And yes—the irony you identify is real as an optics issue:

Documents authored by MHI can sometimes be easier to find on MHProNews than on MHI’s current public website.

That doesn’t prove intent. But it is objectively relevant to transparency.

---

Table 4 — What the Evidence Does and Does Not Establish

---

So, Has MHI Actually Answered the Consolidation Thesis?

Based on the web checks I performed as of September 20, 2026, I would phrase this carefully:

I found no direct, comprehensive, public MHI response specifically rebutting the Consolidation/Gatekeeper Thesis as formulated by MHProNews/HousingWire/MHARR.

MHProNews has documented repeated requests for MHI to address specific critiques, and its September 16 counter-narrative article explicitly says MHI leaders had not responded to the specific thesis.

However, it would be inaccurate to say:

“MHI never responds to criticism.”

It clearly does respond to many policy issues. Its current website contains active advocacy on DTS, ROAD Act implementation, financing, zoning and other matters.

And there is historical evidence that MHI has responded to critics such as Doug Ryan, James Schmitz and Lee Ohanian in other contexts, as MHProNews itself has acknowledged.

Thus:

MHI’s documented public advocacy is extensive; what remains conspicuously absent in the material I found is a point-by-point public response to the specific Consolidation Thesis and its accumulated factual allegations.

That is a much more precise statement.

---

The Most Important Finding: A Coherent MHI Defense Actually Exists

I think this is where the FEA becomes most interesting.

The strongest MHI defense does not require claiming the Consolidation Thesis is absurd.

It would say:

“Manufactured housing’s underperformance is real. The barriers are real. MHI has spent years pursuing incremental reforms against difficult political, regulatory, financial and local-government obstacles. The industry’s largest companies did not create all of those barriers, and MHI cannot control them. The ROAD Act, DTS reforms, CrossMod, zoning initiatives, financing programs and HUD engagement represent a cumulative strategy designed to expand the market without destabilizing the existing financing, manufacturing and community ecosystem.”

That is coherent.

It is also supported by actual MHI documents.

For example, MHI’s 2024 DTS filing plainly advocates a GSE flow program for personal-property loans. And its current 2026 position calls for more measurable DTS outcomes and greater home-only financing.

So the “MHI does nothing” version of the Consolidation Thesis is too easy to rebut.

The stronger Consolidation Thesis is different:

“MHI does many things. The question is whether the things it chooses to do, the things it does not do, the compromises it accepts, the enforcement mechanisms it does or does not pursue, and the measurable outcomes of those choices are consistent with maximizing broad-based manufactured-housing production—or whether they disproportionately accommodate the interests of the industry’s largest vertically integrated participants.”

That is a substantially more formidable proposition.

---

And That Is Where the Independent Research Matters

This is why I would not let the article become simply:

MHProNews vs. MHI.

The external evidence is too useful.

You have:

• Maris Jensen — empirical work on floor-plan finance, vertical relationships and market foreclosure.
• James Schmitz Jr. and Federal Reserve research — zoning, financing, factory-built housing and structural barriers.
• Samuel Strommen — antitrust/concentration thesis, which should be presented as research allegations rather than adjudicated findings.
• Doug Ryan / Prosperity Now — historical concern about monopoly/concentration in manufactured housing finance.
• Marty Lavin — long-running emphasis on following the money and observing what participants actually do rather than merely what they say.
• MHARR — a separate industry association with a long-running critique of MHI’s regulatory strategy.
• MHI’s own testimony — sometimes supporting positions that look quite similar to MHARR’s.
• MHI’s current policy statements — showing that MHI really does advocate some of the reforms critics say it doesn’t pursue.
• Corporate disclosures — showing that major participants simultaneously invest, acquire, expand capacity and return capital to shareholders.

That makes the story much more interesting than a binary “MHI good/MHI bad” argument.

---

My Bottom-Line FEA Assessment

The data portion of your pending article is solid, with two qualifications I would explicitly state:

1. RVIA’s numbers are North American wholesale shipments while IBTS is U.S. manufactured housing, so this is a benchmark rather than a perfect apples-to-apples comparison.
2. “Necessity vs. luxury” should be softened to essential shelter/homeownership demand versus predominantly discretionary/lifestyle demand.

The KPI proposition is also legitimate:

Production and shipments are reasonable high-level KPIs for assessing whether an industry association representing the overwhelming majority of industry production is achieving its stated objective of expanding manufactured housing.

But production should be treated as one outcome KPI among several, not proof of MHI causation.

The Consolidation Thesis remains a serious hypothesis supported by a substantial body of evidence, but it is not proven merely because production is low.

The most important counterweight is that MHI really has advocated some of the same things MHARR and others demand—especially DTS/chattel reform and, historically, enhanced preemption.

That fact makes the central question more sophisticated:

Is MHI’s problem primarily one of policy position—or one of policy execution, enforcement, prioritization, compromise and measurable results?

That, in my view, is the question the developing article should put squarely before readers.

And the accumulating evidence gives you a particularly useful FEA test:

If MHI says its strategy is “strategic pragmatism,” then the KPI question becomes whether strategic pragmatism is producing measurable expansion in manufactured-home production, placement, financing, competition and consumer access.

The July numbers do not yet show that outcome. July 2026 production was 8,526, YTD production was 58,885 and down 5.1% from 2025. Meanwhile RVIA recorded 19,948 RV shipments in July alone.

At the same time, MHI can legitimately point to active current efforts—including its July 2026 DTS advocacy and September 2026 push for ROAD Act implementation.

That tension—not a predetermined verdict—is the strongest FEA narrative.

It permits the article to say, in effect:

Here is the evidence for the Consolidation Thesis. Here is the strongest defense MHI could make. Here is the evidence supporting that defense. Here are the facts the defense still has difficulty explaining. Readers can then judge whether the “Strategic Pragmatism” explanation sufficiently accounts for the industry’s extraordinary production underperformance.

That is considerably stronger journalism than simply asserting that MHI has no defense.

And, importantly, it gives MHI a fair opportunity to respond to a specific, documented evidentiary record rather than to a caricature of its position.

— MHProNews notes that the input-inquiry process with ChatGPT that yielded the above is linked here. The confirmation of that Q&A for accuracy by ChatGPT is linked here and posted below. —

 

5. Next, per ChatGPT and from the follow up Q&A is the following.

“The MHProNews argument is…There is a substantial body of facts and documentary evidence from corporate, association, regulatory, academic, and industry sources that supports a thesis that industry consolidation, vertical integration, financing practices, association priorities, and the conduct or non-enforcement of relevant policies have contributed to manufactured housing’s extraordinary long-term underperformance.”

MHProNews notes that it was via the follow up Q&A that ChatGPT surfaced a significant document.

“The 21st Mortgage letter is particularly important evidence

The underlying letter is not merely an MHProNews allegation. The letter itself is a primary-source document. And there is independent evidence establishing the surrounding chronology.

Cavco’s SEC filings, for example, state that 21st Mortgage significantly curtailed its retail lending program in January 2009 and that the reduction in available financing adversely affected manufactured-housing retailers. …”

The context for that is found in the full ChatGPT response that follows.

Yes—with several important distinctions, I think that is a fairer characterization of what the MHProNews material is actually arguing.

1. “Consolidation Thesis” does not mean “absolute proof”

Your definition is essentially correct. A thesis is a proposition put forward for examination, argument, or proof. It does not mean the proposition has already been conclusively proven.

That distinction matters here. The MHProNews argument is not properly characterized as:

“We have proved that MHI and its leaders deliberately caused the industry’s underperformance.”

It is much closer to:

There is a substantial body of facts and documentary evidence from corporate, association, regulatory, academic, and industry sources that supports a thesis that industry consolidation, vertical integration, financing practices, association priorities, and the conduct or non-enforcement of relevant policies have contributed to manufactured housing’s extraordinary long-term underperformance.

That is a materially different—and more defensible—claim.

2. The 21st Mortgage letter is particularly important evidence

The underlying letter is not merely an MHProNews allegation. The letter itself is a primary-source document. And there is independent evidence establishing the surrounding chronology.

Cavco’s SEC filings, for example, state that 21st Mortgage significantly curtailed its retail lending program in January 2009 and that the reduction in available financing adversely affected manufactured-housing retailers.

Samuel Strommen subsequently characterized the arrangement as an apparent tying violation. That is Strommen’s legal/analytical characterization—not a court finding—and it should continue to be labeled that way.

The subsequent chronology is also documented: Fleetwood entered Chapter 11 on March 10, 2009, and Champion filed Chapter 11 in November 2009.

Maris Jensen’s academic research adds a separate but complementary dimension: she documents vertical integration, downstream acquisitions and the 2005 Clayton/21st Mortgage acquisition of Fleetwood Retail, followed by Fleetwood and Champion’s 2009 bankruptcies.

So, yes, the Strommen “tying” issue and Jensen’s vertical/financial-foreclosure research can reasonably be presented as complementary lines of evidence within the broader thesis. They are not the same claim, and neither by itself proves the entire thesis.

3. Did Champion or Fleetwood sue over the 21st Mortgage letter?

Here I would retain the wording “no evidence found”, rather than turn an exhaustive-search negative into an absolute historical statement.

I searched specifically for litigation or a public legal challenge by Champion Enterprises or Fleetwood Enterprises against 21st Mortgage, Clayton Homes, or Berkshire Hathaway concerning the letter or its alleged tying implications. I did not find such a lawsuit.

There is an important nuance: Fleetwood’s bankruptcy court record does show 21st Mortgage as a creditor in the bankruptcy proceedings. That is obviously not the same thing as Fleetwood suing 21st over the lending letter.

Thus a publication-safe formulation would be:

“MHProNews has found no publicly documented lawsuit by legacy Champion Enterprises or Fleetwood Enterprises against 21st Mortgage, Clayton Homes, or Berkshire Hathaway challenging the January 2009 lending restrictions on the antitrust/tying theory subsequently articulated by Samuel Strommen.”

That is stronger than saying merely “we don’t know,” while avoiding the impossible burden of proving that no such proceeding ever existed.

4. MHI’s present board does contain substantial representation from major consolidators

This is also demonstrable, although I would modify “beholden to consolidators” because that is an inference about individual motivations.

MHI’s current board lists, among others:

• Patrick Waite — Equity LifeStyle Properties
• Cody Pearce — YES Communities
• Walden Buttram — 21st Mortgage
• Bobby Alberts — Clayton Homes
• Bill Boor — Cavco
• Matt Belcher — Clayton
• Jody Gabel — Flagship
• Sam Landy — UMH
• Wade Lyall — Champion
• Nathan Smith — Flagship
• Tim Williams — 21st Mortgage

along with other manufacturers, suppliers, community operators and state-association representation.

So “MHI’s board contains extensive representation from companies that are major participants in manufactured-housing consolidation” is a factual statement.

“Those directors are beholden to consolidators” is an inference about fiduciary/personal motivation and should remain identified as such.

5. And yes—the thesis draws heavily upon their own documents

This is one of the strongest features of the FEA approach.

The argument isn’t dependent exclusively upon MHProNews saying, “MHI is doing X.”

The evidence base includes:

• MHI documents and policy submissions;
• corporate SEC filings and investor presentations;
• statements by corporate executives;
• the 21st Mortgage letter;
• MHI board composition;
• academic research such as Jensen’s dissertation;
• Strommen’s antitrust analysis;
• historical production data;
• bankruptcy records;
• statements by community operators;
• and the documented sequence of acquisitions and industry consolidation.

Jensen’s work is especially useful because it isn’t an MHProNews-created dataset. Her dissertation documents the downstream-acquisition phenomenon and specifically identifies the Clayton/21st Mortgage acquisition of Fleetwood Retail and the subsequent bankruptcies of Fleetwood and Champion.

That is precisely the kind of independent evidence that makes an FEA thesis materially more substantial than an editorial accusation.

6. The fiduciary-duty point needs one careful adjustment

I would not say:

“Their fiduciary responsibilities required them to sue.”

That’s too categorical.

A board’s fiduciary obligations generally require it to act in the interests of its corporation/shareholders, but whether a particular event legally required litigation depends upon the facts, governing law, corporate circumstances, available remedies, damages, causation, etc.

The stronger FEA question is:

Given the apparent economic significance of the 21st Mortgage restrictions, the subsequent bankruptcies, and the later consolidation of assets, what legal, regulatory, or strategic actions—if any—did affected companies and their directors take to challenge the conduct?

The absence of a publicly documented challenge becomes evidence worth examining, rather than proof of a fiduciary breach.

7. Where I think your formulation becomes particularly strong

Put the pieces together:

Fact: 21st Mortgage substantially curtailed lending in January 2009.
Fact: Its letter conditioned lending on retailer behavior involving Clayton product.
Evidence: Cavco contemporaneously described the contraction of financing as adversely affecting the industry.
Analysis: Strommen later characterized the arrangement as an apparent tying issue.
Fact: Fleetwood and Champion subsequently entered bankruptcy.
Fact: Clayton/21st subsequently acquired Fleetwood Retail, according to Jensen’s research.
Fact: Later, companies including Cavco, Champion and others became significant consolidators.
Fact: MHI’s current board contains substantial representation from those major industry participants.
Fact: The industry nevertheless remains dramatically below its late-1990s production levels.

That does not mathematically prove a conspiracy, unlawful collusion, or intentional suppression of production.

But it absolutely supplies the raw material for a serious consolidation thesis.

8. Is it fair to say it is “the strongest FEA-based argument”?

I’d make one small wording change.

Rather than an unqualified:

“the strongest FEA argument”

I’d say:

“a particularly substantial FEA-based thesis for explaining manufactured housing’s extraordinary 21st-century underperformance.”

That avoids turning an analytical conclusion into an absolute ranking while preserving what I think you are actually saying.

And importantly, the absence of a public rebuttal is itself part of the evidentiary picture, but not proof of the thesis.

As of this search, I still find no publicly documented direct rebuttal by MHI, Cavco, Champion or the other major consolidators specifically addressing the Strommen/21st Mortgage tying allegation. An earlier AI search reached the same result.

That makes this formulation quite defensible for publication:

“The Consolidation Thesis is not presented as absolute proof. It is a thesis supported by a substantial and growing body of primary-source documents, corporate records, academic research, historical data and industry evidence. Despite repeated public presentation of that evidence, MHProNews has found no direct, substantive public rebuttal from MHI addressing the thesis as a whole, nor a public legal challenge from legacy Champion or Fleetwood to the 21st Mortgage letter on the tying theory subsequently articulated by Samuel Strommen.”

That, in my view, captures the distinction between FEA evidence supporting a thesis and claiming that the thesis has already been judicially or historically proven.

— MHProNews notes that there were additional findings by ChatGPT and Gemini with respect to hat Cavco/SEC filing and related reference that supports the 21st Mortgage Corporation letter from Tim Williams, who served as an MHI chairman and is still an MHI board member. That information including confirmation by ChatGPT will be featured in the report scheduled for 9.23.2026. Don’t miss it. It breaks important new ground and provides fresh 3rd party documentary evidence related to potential antitrust and other violations of law. —

6. Programming notice. The plan for Wednesday 9.23.2026 is to provide the more specific look at the new evidence that ChatGPT and Gemini surfaced as a result of this report.

There is always more to know.

 

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