‘Want Affordable Housing? Take the Chassis Off Manufactured Houses’ and ‘Don’t Call Them Mobile Homes’ Prof Lee Ohanian and James A. Schmitz WaPo Op-Ed Echoes Andrew Justus-Alex Armlovich views; plus MHVille Markets


Circa 1990, per informed sources deemed reliable, the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) had all but negotiated the removable of the permanent chassis requirement for HUD Code manufactured homes that could have been part of then moving legislation. Per those same sources, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) had a key staffer who flip-flopped on a prior commitment made by MHI to MHARR to support that removal of the permanent chassis language. Doing so would have opened up the option for factories to build HUD Code homes with a removable chassis. Fastforward thirty-plus years later, neither MHI nor that former-MHI staffer would confirm or deny those allegations about their torpedoing the removal of the permanent chassis language to MHProNews. Thus, decades later on this date that removable chassis issue is still festering. Then and now, easily identified agendas by conventional housing and purportedly by some in manufactured housing are part of the historic forces, as is illustrated by the document attached from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), that have kept the removable chassis on HUD Code manufactured homes from becoming reality. With those points in mind, on 5.21.2024 the left-leaning Washington Post (a.k.a.: WaPo) published an op-ed co-authored by “Lee E. Ohanian and James A. Schmitz.” The WaPo headline states: “Want affordable housing? Take the chassis off manufactured houses.” The subheading adds: “And don’t call them mobile homes.”

The Washington Post explained: “Lee E. Ohanian is a distinguished professor of economics at UCLA and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. James A. Schmitz is a member of the graduate faculty in economics at the University of Minnesota.” As regular and detail minded readers of MHProNews know, Jim Schmitz Jr. is also a senior economist with the Minneapolis Federal Reserve who has been cited repeatedly by Manufactured Home Pro News (MHProNews.com) and Manufactured Home Living News (MHLivingNews.com) for his topic of ‘sabotaging monopolies‘ which he and others assert have subverted manufactured housing for decades.

Per an informed source, the photo of a manufactured home used with this op-ed in the Washington Post was provided by MHI, more on that in Part II.

That preface or forward sets the stage for Part I which provides the bulk of the roughly 700-word op-ed in Part I, minus photos and captions. The following from their op-ed will be clearly labeled additions and editorial comments from MHProNews.


Part I

QuoteMarksLeftSideWant affordable housing? Take the chassis off manufactured houses

And don’t call them mobile homes

By Lee E. Ohanian and James A. Schmitz

May 21, 2024 at 7:30 a.m. EDT

With the median selling price of U.S. homes at nearly $400,000, the rising cost of housing is a top concern of many Americans. One reason homes both new and resold are so expensive is that almost all of them have been built the traditional way — on-site, and by construction workers.

Things were different in the quarter-century after World War II, when progress in manufacturing allowed homes to be built from start to finish within a factory and delivered to the buyer’s site. Often called “mobile homes,” they offered middle- and lower-income families an affordable housing alternative. By the early 1970s, roughly 1 in 3 U.S. single-family homes produced were manufactured, and in 14 states at least half the homes were manufactured.


MHProNews Note 1: the following is not part of the WaPo op-ed by Ohanian and Schmitz,
but serves to illustrate points made in their article. 

Note 2: to expand this image below to a larger or full size, see the instructions

below the graphic below or click the image and follow the prompts.

 Notice: Several of the illustrations shown in this report can be opened in many browsers to reveal a larger size. To open this picture, click the image once. When the window opens, click it again to reveal the larger size photo. Use your browsers back key to return to the article. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/true-tale-of-four-attorneys-research-into-manufactured-housing-what-they-reveal-about-why-manufactured-homes-are-underperforming-during-an-affordable-housing-crisis-facts-and-analysis/ and https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/democratic-congressional-staffer-alleged-manufactured-housing-institute-mhi-anti-consumer-manufactured-housing-institute-leaders-decline-comment-sam-strommen-antitrust-case-allegations-anal/


But passage of the 1974 National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act ushered in a long decline in the industry. Fifty years later, we find that manufactured homes account for only about 9 percent of new single-family home production. Amending the law — by eliminating five crucial words — would provide an important first step in bringing back this once-popular housing alternative.


MHProNews Note 1: the following is not part of the WaPo op-ed by Ohanian and Schmitz,
but serves to illustrate points made in their article. 

Note 2: to expand this image below to a larger or full size,
click the image and follow the prompts.




Those words are “built on a permanent chassis” — the phrase that requires manufactured houses to be affixed to a bulky traveling base even after they become somebody’s home. Previously, the houses were usually mounted on a wheeled chassis for transport, but once on-site, both the wheels and the chassis could come off; most families chose to do that and fix their homes onto a permanent foundation, often including a basement.

Housing officials justified the permanent chassis requirement by saying it made the homes safer — but it has done the opposite. The permanent chassis regulation is intended to increase the structural stability of the home and reduce the likelihood of high winds turning the home over or damaging the home. Forced to leave the base on their houses, most buyers “tie them down,” fastening the chassis to anchors buried in the ground.

Homes on chassis have proved to be susceptible to severe weather risks such as tornadoes, as they are much more easily ripped off a chassis than off a permanent foundation. Analyzing U.S. tornado deaths from 1996 to 2023, the Associated Press found that 53 percent of people who died at home — 815 people — were in manufactured houses.

Homes on chassis are also far less aesthetically pleasing — and they conjure up long-standing prejudice against “mobile homes” in “trailer parks.” Some homeowners have put skirts around the base of the house to hide the chassis, but that doesn’t do much to override the prejudice. And trying to bury the chassis in a deep foundation or basement is expensive — thwarting the basic goal of providing a cheaper home.


MHProNews Note: Not part of WaPo op-ed, but serves to illustrate points that they’ve made. Dr. Lisa Tyler, Ph.D., did her doctoral thesis on “Examining Community Attitudes Toward Manufactured Housing.” See that and other research at this link: https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/ultimate-reporters-researchers-affordable-housing-advocates-or-shoppers-3rd-party-research-reports-on-mobile-homes-manufactured-homes-and-modular-housing/


These factors led to significantly lower demand (and production levels) for manufactured homes, and reduced sales led to higher prices. Even so, manufactured homes are still significantly less expensive than traditionally built homes — 52 percent less per square foot.

If Congress removed the permanent chassis requirement, manufactured homes would be safer, and they would be much more acceptable in traditional neighborhoods. Today, they come in sizes ranging from 600 square feet to more than 3,000 square feet, and in a variety of designs and finishes.


MHProNews Note 1: the following is not part of the WaPo op-ed by
Ohanian and Schmitz,
but serves to clarify and draw attention to a remark about size shown above.

Note 2: to expand this image below to a larger or full size,
click the image and follow the prompts.

While much of what is said in this op-ed is evidence based, there are some aspects that merit refinement. For instance, manufactured homes, per HUD and federal law (see screen capture above) is a minimum of 320 square feet. Some HUD Code builders do build smaller manufactured homes that could be 320 square feet and up.


Amending the law would also facilitate the financing of manufactured homes. Private mortgages are largely unavailable for manufactured homes because, in principle, they can be moved. This leads them to be typically financed as personal property, like cars, with higher interest rates than mortgages. In 2021, 77 percent of manufactured homes were titled as personal property rather than real estate.

Using the Census Bureau’s cost data for building manufactured homes and site-built homes, we calculate that purchasing an average-size new home of 2,559 square feet as a manufactured home, rather than as one built on-site, would save consumers about $175,000. This is nothing short of a game changer for home affordability.

Last year, Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.) submitted House Resolution 5198, which would eliminate the permanent chassis requirement by striking the words “built on a permanent chassis” from the definition of a manufactured home.

Congress should pass that bill. It could transform the dream of homeownership for millions of Americans into reality. ##


Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary

The photo caption below the manufactured home shown in the Washington Post editorial was from Next Step. But a source connected with the WaPo article told MHProNews: “As I heard it, MHI provided the photo.” Next Step reportedly receives support from Clayton Homes. Clayton Homes and their Berkshire Hathaway affiliates are high-profile companies with MHI. Next Step is also an MHI member.  That noted, in no particular order of importance are the following related information and observations about the above.

1) As was noted in the preface, what was called ‘The Hiler Amendment,’ named for Representative John Patrick Hiler (IN-R) who per Congress.gov served from 1981 – 1991, could have allowed for a removable chassis on HUD Code manufactured homes decades ago. Some 33 years later, the “built on a permanent chassis” remains – per sources deemed reliable – because MHI ‘torpedoed’ the deal which would have allowed for a surgical change in the language.  MHI, MHI’s media relations professional, and MHI’s outside attorney has declined confirming or denying that claim.


2) The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has had a long-standing policy of opposing the removable chassis requirement, as James “Jim” Schmitz Jr., has previously said and reaffirmed in this new op-ed in the Washington Post.


3) For example. From the NAHB’s Oct 2021 Policy Handbook pages 8-9 says the following.

QuoteMarksLeftSide1987.1 No. 26 FHA Financing of Mobile Homes When Chassis Has Been Removed

Resolved that, in the event that the chassis of a manufactured housing unit is removed, the National Association of Home Builders urges the Federal Housing Administration to require that unit to meet all state and local building codes, including higher energy standards, required for conventionally built housing.

(Housing Finance Committee) …”


4) Yet despite that language and clear opposition of NAHB, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) has in recent years oddly been signing onto several letters and ads with conventional housing competitors of HUD Code manufactured homes that include the NAHB. For a deeper dive, see the report linked here and further below.


5) To a point made by Schmitz for years prior to this new op-ed with Ohanian about NAHB opposition to the removable chassis in other articles and reports, is this NAHB policy document from 1985.


6) In 1987, the NAHB made a similar – and once again successful – opposition to the removable chassis option for manufactured homes.  That 1987 NAHB document said in part the following.


QuoteMarksLeftSide…WHEREAS, HUD regulations do not permit the removal of the permanent chassis; and

WHEREAS, HUD’s position is that a manufactured home without a permanent chassis is a
non-conforming unit and therefore subject to state and local building codes; and

WHEREAS, in January 1986 NAHB enacted policy opposing expansion of the Act to cover
units built with removable chassis; and

WHEREAS, the use of removable chassis significantly expands the Act to cover housing
covered by state and local codes and therefore, places conventionally built housing at a competitive
disadvantage with respect to the costs incurred in complying with more stringent codes,
Resolution No. 26

WHEREAS, NAHB has existing policy opposing changes in the National Manufactured
Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act that would eliminate the “permanent chassis”

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in the event that the chassis of a
manufactured housing unit is removed, the National Association of Home Builders urge the Federal
Housing Administration to require that unit to meet all state and local building codes, including
higher energy standards, required for conventionally built housing. …”


7) To borrow the phrase, ‘sleeping with the enemy,’ that is what MHI has apparently been doing for some years when they openly align themselves with the competitors of HUD Code manufactured housing. But that begs the question, why?




8) The stance taken by Ohanian and Schmitz is similar to the following item on the Federation of American Scientists website.  Note that the co-author of the following is Andrew Justus, J.D. MHProNews has reported on his largely pro-manufactured housing stance in articles linked here and here. Highlighting in what follows is added by MHProNews, but the text is as in the original.


QuoteMarksLeftSideEliminating The Chassis Requirement To Free Manufactured Homes From Local Discrimination And Regulatory Dead Weight


The coastal housing problem is highly salient in the housing discourse. However, more Americans live in rural areas than in all of California and New York combined. Even in metropolitan areas, most U.S. metros still have median home prices within 125% of construction costs — meaning that construction costs matter more than growth controls and land prices for home prices there.

Unfortunately, from 1987 to 2016, single-family residential construction productivity increased only 12%. Indeed homebuilding productivity has fared uniquely badly compared to the rest of the economy throughout the postwar era. Site-built construction overall, and single-family home construction in particular, remains resistant to productivity-boosting innovations.

Enter manufactured housing, the oft-maligned (or forgotten) housing type quietly providing 8.4 million affordable homes across the country. Modern manufactured homes have strict standards for structural integrity, material durability, and safety. In recent years, administrative changes to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Code that governs manufactured home construction have allowed innovations like higher roof pitch and even limited multifamily designs to enter the market.

The Opportunity

Like cars or airplanes, manufactured homes are factory-built on an assembly line inside a controlled environment. This allows greater efficiency compared to site-built homes, where workers need to perform their duties in all weather conditions and sometimes awkward positions. Because manufactured homes are built indoors, workers can operate more efficiently and safely. This efficiency has a significant cost advantage, according to the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, up 25-65% less than equivalent site-built construction.

Despite their efficiency advantage, manufactured homes face discriminatory barriers to fair competition with site-built construction. Many state laws and local zoning codes restrict or exclude manufactured homes, often based on architectural features common only on manufactured homes, like the congressionally-mandated permanent chassis.

The permanent chassis under every manufactured home must be retained even after permanent installation onto the land. This requirement is meant to retain nominal interstate portability, even though manufactured homes are rarely moved after they are attached to the land. The permanent chassis limits architectural flexibility by requiring the home to be installed higher off the ground to account for the chassis’s vertical height, makes basements less practical, and effectively precludes using HUD Code construction for upper floors due to the weight and bulk of the chassis.

In the past, organizations like the National Association of Homebuilders opposed reforming the HUD Code chassis requirement in an effort to protect home builders from more efficient, factory-made competition. Today, with the construction sector at full employment, this motivation for opposition has subsided.

Congress alone can eliminate the permanent chassis requirement for manufactured homes because the requirement is part of the definition of a manufactured home established by Congress. To do this, Congress must amend the definition of a manufactured home to remove the phrase “on a permanent chassis.” By doing this, Congress can eliminate wasted construction materials, allow new multifamily design options under the HUD Code, and unleash competition from factory-built manufactured housing. 

Plan Of Action

Identify and engage key stakeholders

  • Stakeholders include National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Realtors, Manufactured Housing Institute, and other relevant organizations in the manufactured housing policy space.
  • Conduct outreach to stakeholder organizations to ensure positional alignment and efficient use of resources for legislator education.

Educate legislators on the basics of manufactured homes, their role in the housing market, and their inherent efficiencies.

  • Member education will take the form of in-person and virtual meetings with member and committee offices in both chambers. Members on relevant committees and a geographically diverse slate of members who are active in housing policy will be prioritized.
  • Legislator education will focus on removing a federal barrier to consumer choice and allowing fair competition between different construction methods. Additional talking points will include that the reform requires no appropriation and will improve access to modest and starter homes across the country.

The end goal is to incorporate revised manufactured home definition without permanent chassis requirement into must-pass legislation. An alternative is to pass it as standalone legislation.


Based on conversations with HUD staff, it is our understanding that once the permanent chassis requirement is lifted by Congress, HUD and the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee will need to revise its existing administrative regulations to incorporate off-chassis construction into the existing HUD Code, or it could develop a parallel HUD Code for off-chassis construction.

After the HUD Code revisions are completed, homebuilders will have more design flexibility, and consumers will have more options beyond local site-built home builders for small and starter homes. Increased uptake for manufactured construction following this policy change will come from allowing HUD Code construction to compete more evenly against site-built construction.

This idea of merit originated from our Housing Ideas Challenge, in partnership with Learning ColliderNational Zoning Atlas, and Cornell’s Legal Constructs Lab. Find additional ideas to address the housing shortage here. ##

Note that per the Niskanen Center:


Andrew Justus is a housing policy analyst, who works on urban issues, such as housing, transportation, and infrastructure within the social policy team. Previously, he was an associate attorney at Sullivan & Barros, LLP where he worked with D.C. zoning and land use regulations for residential developments. Justus has also worked at Smart Growth America as a policy associate focusing on Complete Streets, rural development, and intercity passenger rail policy.

Justus has received his Masters in Urban and Regional Planning (M.U.R.P.) from the University of Michigan and his J.D. from Western Michigan University’s Thomas M. Cooley Law School.


Alex Armlovich is a Senior Housing Policy Analyst. His research translates urban economics into actionable policy research on the creation of abundant and affordable housing of all kinds. He previously covered transportation at Citizens Budget Commission of NY and was a state and local policy fellow at Manhattan Institute.

Armlovich received his B.A. in Economics and Political Science from University of Rochester and his M.P.P. in Social and Urban Policy from Harvard Kennedy School.


9) Set aside for the next few moments the question if Justus and Armlovich, in their pitch above, are sincere or are acting for some purpose other than as stated. Where is the evidence that NAHB has lifted their opposition to removable chassis on manufactured homes?  As of As of March 1, 2024, the NAHB Policy Handbook linked here stated the following on page 13.


1987.1 No. 26 FHA Financing of Mobile Homes When Chassis Has Been Removed
Resolved that, in the event that the chassis of a manufactured housing unit is removed, the National
Association of Home Builders urges the Federal Housing Administration to require that unit to meet all
state and local building codes, including higher energy standards, required for conventionally built
(Housing Finance Committee)
(Expiration Date: 2027)

Yet Justus and Armlovich said: “In the past, organizations like the National Association of Homebuilders opposed reforming the HUD Code chassis requirement in an effort to protect home builders from more efficient, factory-made competition. Today, with the construction sector at full employment, this motivation for opposition has subsided.” It seems that the opposition by NAHB for a “HUD Code chassis requirement” has been consistent for decades, as the evidence herein clearly documents.


10) It is an entirely fair question if the NAHB, perhaps in coordination with MHI, is preparing a shift. But again, as noted, NAHB has for decades, as Part II of this report with analysis reveals, openly opposed the removable chassis on manufactured homes.

Yet, despite opposition by the NAHB to steps that might benefit HUD Code manufactured housing, MHI has been ‘teaming up’ with NAHB also quite openly in recent years. The historic NAHB document opposing the removable chassis shown in the screen capture below can be seen full size at this link here.




11) This might be viewed through the lens of Clayton Homes, which has for years been building their portfolio of conventional site-builders. Clayton has been pushing to ‘blur the lines’ between conventional building and “off-site” components used in site building. There are some in MHVille that believe that Clayton’s long-term plan includes an emphasis on conventional housing that is supported by factory-built components and/or modules.






12) In fairness, shorter op-eds of 600 to 800 words in length only allow for limited amounts of information that can be sensibly included.  That said, neither Ohanian and Schmitz, nor Justus and Armlovich, have apparently mentioned that the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 (a.k.a. MHIA, 2000 Reform Law, 2000 Reform Act, etc.) has been federal law for some approaching two dozen years without the “enhanced preemption” provision being consistently and swiftly enforced by HUD. While it may be true that some jurisdictions might be more welcoming of manufactured homes if the chassis on a HUD Code home is removed, this legislative proposal actually provides no specific remedy or mechanism to compel a city, town, or county to comply. That is precisely why the 2000 reform law and enhanced preemption are so vital to be vigorously enforced. Manufactured housing pros can know from the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) experience on the left-coast that enforcing preemption can cause sales to literally soar. While the removable chassis certainly may prove useful, if such a change was properly implemented, it may not be nearly as impactful as the enforcement of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 and its enhanced preemption provision. While production has improved since Cavco Industries (CVCO) CEO William “Bill” Boor made the remarks provided below, the points about preemption enforcement remain valid.




13) Even MHI member-emeritus George Allen has said that manufactured housing production could be doubled under the current conditions. While true, that is still a far cry from what MHI’s prior president and CEO said captured on video. Namely, that the industry could achieve 500,000 new homes produced, which would be over a 5-fold increase in production.


Still and quote are from the video posted on this page. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/we-need-to-remove-the-shackles-on-our-industry-mhi-ceos-historic-call-for-cfpb-feds-to-unleash-manufactured-home-industry-growth-via-more-lending-marty-lavin-in/


14) There is potentially a kind of utility to the attention being brought to manufactured housing by co-authors Ohanian and Schmitz or Justus and Armlovich. But as MHARR and MHProNews have both reported, there are potential risks involved if the language is not precisely changed.




TrojanHorse-LoomingImpact Troubling QuestionsHistory RaisedOnPotentiallyDeceptiveBaitAnd SwitchHousing LegislationPoised ToHarmManufacturedHomeIndustry FactsAndAnalysisMHProNews


15) But to underscore the concerns that dark forces inside of manufactured housing, with support from competitors of the industry, could be colluding to reduce or eliminate the HUD Code entirely, consider this from the NAHB.

The following remarks are from the NAHB policies dated March 2024.

QuoteMarksLeftSide2003.5 No. 8 Support for a Single Set of Building Codes Resolved that NAHB support a single coordinated set of national model building codes for jurisdictions choosing to adopt a building code that provides for:
1. Responsible code development procedures as reflected by the current procedures of the International Code Council;
2. Appropriate levels of voting representation by NAHB nominees on code development committees; and
3. A user-friendly, stand-alone residential building code that includes housing affordability as a major determinant in its development, as currently represented by the International Residential Code. Further resolved that NAHB will continue to support the adoption of state-enabling legislation that:
1. Calls for the creation of state-wide codes based on a coordinated set of national model building codes developed in accordance with the criteria stated above;
2. Allows state-wide amendments to the model codes to account for jurisdictional differences or to enhance housing affordability by providing cost-effective requirements to provide for the health and safety of the occupants of homes; and
3. Creates statewide minimum-maximum code requirements by recommending that there be no local amendments, which make the code more restrictive or housing less affordable; and

Further resolved that NAHB will continue to oppose any building code or building code provision that is detrimental to the goal of providing decent, safe and affordable housing and that does not include jurisdictional flexibility.  …”

MHProNews asked an industry attorney for some insights on the above. In an emailed reply was the following observations.
QuoteMarksLeftSideObviously, there’s quite a bit to unpack here. Without writing a book on this, I’ll note the following, on background…”
Regarding 2003.5:
1. Use of the word “jurisdiction” is undefined. Unless its defined elsewhere, it could conceivably include the federal government and therefore, MH regulation under current law.
2. While subsequent sections refer to state code adoption, that is not conclusive regarding the meaning and scope of “jurisdiction.”
3. Referring to and endorsing the current procedures of the ICC is obviously a problem. The ICC’s procedures allow for the domination of that process by climate special interests and radicals, in my opinion. Further, its residential code is explicitly premised on reaching net zero energy usage and is expressly committed to increasing energy “efficiency” mandates on a continual basis, irrespective of cost.
4. In monitoring the development of the 2024 IECC, I saw no evidence that “affordability” was a “major determinant” in its development. The reference to the IRC is puzzling at best. There’s always a possibility that there are different criteria for the development of that particular code within ICC, but I doubt it. This would appear to be either a mischaracterization or wishful thinking. I can’t make a specific comment, though, without researching it.
On the whole, its a big sloppy kiss for ICC. The question is “why?” It didn’t appear to me that they got much of what they wanted out of the IECC process, so they either got their way on some other code, or there’s something else (corrupt) going on. It would be fertile ground for a lawsuit at some point, just like the one that targeted NAR.
Regarding 1987.1:
I suppose this is the price/trade-off for them supporting the chassis removal amendment. Its legality is iffy at best. Current law provides for federal preemption of state/local codes for any HUD labelled MH. My understanding is that an MH with a removable chassis would still be a HUD labelled MH. Unless the federal law is changed as part of any chassis removal bill, a state/locality would not have legal authority to require a HUD labelled MH to meet any state or local building code requirement that differs from the HUD Code — i.e., any such requirement would be federally preempted. If FHA, as a federal (HUD) entity, were to try to change its regulations to implement such a requirement, that FHA regulation would conflict with the existing federal statute, which establishes construction and safety standards for ALL MH (regardless of chassis status) — much like the attempted prohibition on multi-family MH that we forced HUD to drop — and would be subject to legal action to enjoin/revoke any such FHA regulation.
All that is just the tip of the iceberg regarding any such scenario. …”
Restating some key portions of the above, that attorney – who stressed that more research is merited – appears to be making this case. The NAHB’s: “2003.5 No. 8 Support for a Single Set of Building Codes Resolved that NAHB support a single coordinated set of national model building codes…” would be the “the price/trade-off for them supporting the chassis removal amendment.”
If so, that could well fall in line with concerns previously raised by MHARR and MHProNews independently. That may mean that ‘the fix is in’ and the moving parts for accomplishing such changes are already being harnessed.
16) Ironically, some of this should circle back to previously published concerns raised by MHProNews that involved the sabotage monopoly threats argument pressed by Schmitz. As has been previously noted, Ohanian was previously cited by MHProNews too, as was Justus.




17) This is why antitrust action is arguably so important. While it is absolutely questionable if the Biden-Harris era DOJ (or FTC) would tackle manufactured housing related cases directly between now and the 2024 election, it certainly fits the HIPS definition that Ast. Attorney General in charge of antitrust at DOJ, Jonathan Kanter, J.D., said should be the rule of thumb used to measure their interest in a case. As Kanter said (see linked below): “So we developed a methodology that I call “HIPS,” like hands on our hips. It stands for “high impact programmatically significant.” What the concept is, when we’re deciding where to devote our resources, whether it’s an investigation or litigation, we think about, okay, what are the issues that would have the biggest impact on society. An impact can be measured in terms of economic harm, it can be measured in the importance of the product or service, it can be measured in its significance to society broadly.”




18) Outside of MHARR, it is worth noting that only MHProNews and/or MHLivingNews have dealt with these topics in any sort of meaningful way in manufactured housing publishing. So, the facts developed in this report build upon information that were previously known and reported by MHProNews. Others in MHVille trade media will have little or no similar insights, and they all tend to be aligned with MHI.


19) There are some other items that merit attention or commentary that is not directly related to the chassis topic, but which Ohanian and Schmitz raised. Let’s focus on this statement from their op-ed: “Analyzing U.S. tornado deaths from 1996 to 2023, the Associated Press found that 53 percent of people who died at home — 815 people — were in manufactured houses.”  MHI’s website today (5.23.2024) seems to inexplicably fail to use video footage by NBC News that the had staff present for during the wind test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS) on a HUD Code manufactured home subjected to hurricane force winds. That portion of the video starts at about the 3:50 mark in the longer compilation of sources video posted below. The video below reveals that when conventional housing, much commercial construction, or manufactured homes are hit by a tornado, they are often severally damaged or destroyed. The still screen below is of a conventional housing neighborhood hit by a tornado. It had some homes obliterated. Some housing units were severally damaged. Others nearby have debris in their yards, but the houses are seemingly intact. Tornadoes are studied in part because there is still much to be learned about them. But what that AP report should mention is this. Of the 815 people they assert died who lived in a manufactured home, some of them may have died fleeing their residence.  That’s according to statements made by the National Weather Services (NWS) Greg Schoor to MHLivingNews. On the MHI website on this date, if someone looks hard enough, they will find this remark: “Manufactured homes perform as well as site-built homes during a storm. In fact, the explanation for the reports of damage to manufactured homes from tornadoes is quite simple: manufactured housing is largely found in rural and suburban areas where tornadoes are most likely to occur.”


a) But let’s go deeper into that data. In that 28-year period of 1996-2023 referenced by Ohanian and Schmitz in their linked AP report, that would work out to be about 45.27 tornado-related deaths per year. Though NWS’ Schoor explained that the way statistics are gathered, some of those souls who died may have been outside of their residence, let’s ignore his expert statement for discussion’s sake for the next few moments. With about 45 and a quarter lives lost annually for 28 years, and using the estimated total of 22 million Americans living in mobile or manufactured homes, here is what the math on that would look like. 45.2777777778/22,000,000 = 0.00000205808. Meaning, the odds are 99.999997942 in favor of every soul living in a mobile or manufactured home that they won’t die in any given year from a tornado. According to Google’s AI overview on this date: “According to the CDC, over 17,000 people in the US die each year from injuries caused by slips, trips, and falls in the bathroom.” So, the bathrooms in conventional housing could be some 375 times ‘riskier’ for accidental death than dying of a tornado in a mobile or manufactured home in any given year. 

A more refined version of the above is found at this link here as a stand-alone article.




b) Why isn’t such math used by MHI, or others in MHVille trade media associated with MHI? Why is it that beyond MHLivingNews or MHProNews intelligently and honestly defanging fears like tornadoes and windstorms are avoided or done so tepidly? Whose side is MHI and their allies on anyway? Where is the accountability for MHI for their decades of failure to get good existing federal laws that they helped enact actually enforced?




c) What the tornado data, properly unpacked, reveals is this.  Manufactured housing is far safer than most people are led to believe. Dr. Ben Carson, while he was HUD Secretary during the Trump era, did a reasonably good job of making that point and he did so repeatedly.  Yet, MHI fails to have the speech on their website that Dr. Carson delivered to their organization, which mentions things such as manufactured homes in windstorms? Again, whose side is MHI on anyway?


MHProNews Note: to expand this image below to a larger or full size,
click the image and follow the prompts.

On the date shown, Dr. Carson’s pro-manufactured housing speech is not found on MHI’s own website, even though that speech was made during an MHI meeting. That check was performed again for “Carson” on 5.23.2024 at 5:39 AM ET. No result. MHProNews has been doing such fact checks of the MHI website for several years. Useful items are often missing. Troubling issues that could be debunked by facts are missing or may be addressed by problematic and seemingly flawed MHI ‘research’ and ‘focus groups.’ Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection, you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.


d) From that speech on the HUD website and MHLivingNews by Dr. Carson to MHI were these remarks: “On a recent visit to Alabama, I was shown a site that was demolished by massive tornadoes – and the only homes in the area that successfully weathered the storm were manufactured houses. It was a silent testament to their resilience. It is also possible that HUD’s work with industry leaders to update wind Standards for manufactured housing in 1994 could have helped to limit damage and potentially save lives.” Why isn’t that comment by a prior HUD Secretary on the MHI website under the tornado and windstorm FAQs? As the screen capture above reveals, MHI’s website is somewhat akin to George Orwell’s memory hole in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty Four (1984), where information that doesn’t fit an organizational narrative goes to vanish from public sight. After all, MHI is supposed to be the post-production trade group. MHI is supposed to be promoting, educating and protecting (a.k.a.: P.E.P.) on behalf of the industry in the post-production space. The fact that MHARR, with no post-production dues being collected from companies, does anything at all that is post-production related is a testament to how far they are attempting to go to counter not only problematic regulations, but also problematic behavior by the larger and far better funded national manufactured housing trade group.



MHProNews Note: to expand this image below to a larger or full size,
click the image and follow the prompts.

The research by senior economist at the Minneapolis Federal Reserve James “Jim” Schmitz Jr., his colleagues, the legal research by Samuel “Sam” Strommen at Knudson Law, and a grasp of what Warren Buffett, Kevin Clayton, and Tom Hodges have called “the Moat” – among others insights – are useful in understanding the decline of HUD Code manufactured housing. Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts. See the Rise and Fall of HUD Code Manufactured Housing. https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/rise-and-fall-of-hud-code-manufactured-housing-1995-2023-story-of-the-u-s-affordable-housing-crisis-behind-the-facts/ and the lessons learned from the California ADU phenomenal growth. https://www.manufacturedhomelivingnews.com/is-manufactured-home-production-keeping-pace-with-u-s-population-what-california-adu-preemption-and-higher-production-signals-manufactured-housing-potential-to-solve-affordable-housing-crisis/


20) Starting to Sum Up. There are possible rewards as well as risks to the removable chassis topic. It appears that NAHB may be positioning itself for a deal. That deal could involve simplification of regulations for their industry in exchange for supporting the removable chassis on HUD Code manufactured homes. Even if so, such a deal would not necessarily cause HUD to enforce federal preemption for HUD Code manufactured housing. The need to enforce federal preemption on local or state governments would still exist, with or without a removable chassis. As Copilot recently observed, it makes more sense to pursue enforcing an existing law than it does to chase a possible law, especially if that possible law’s outcomes are far from guaranteed. After all, if the Duty to Serve (DTS) and the MHIA have gone unenforced for over 15 and 20 years respectively, why should manufactured home industry pros believe that HUD would automatically roll over on the removable chassis?  It seems apparent that depending on the administration in office, aspects of federal law can be entirely ignored, or even turned on its head.




21)  MHI’s behavior has been shamefully lacking and arguably duplicitous for years on a range of subjects.  Bing’s AI powered Copilot analysis supports such contentions. Perhaps a silver lining to this topic is this: MHI is being continuously revealed as openly working with trade group (NAHB, for example) that has openly and for decades opposed manufactured housing, as Schmitz, Justus, and others have observed.




22) Thinking people often want to understand why someone or some group does (or fails to do) something. The answer to why some involved in MHI want to limit manufactured housing is also increasingly obvious. Industry consolidation. Consolidation is a clearly stated goal of several MHI member brands. That’s not a matter of speculation. Consolidation as a corporate goal is a matter of record documented from the words and pitches made by publicly traded MHI member companies. Two of several possible examples are linked below.




23) Millions of Americans don’t just want affordable housing, they need more affordable housing. Manufactured homes are the most proven inherently affordable kind of permanent homes produced in the U.S. in the late 20th or early 21st centuries. Yet despite decades of evidence, hundreds of articles in newspapers, magazines, or mainstream media websites that promoted the manufactured home option over the years some in media and government act as if they have little or no understanding of the product and its proven capabilities. So, of course headlines on news aggregation websites such as MSN increasingly proclaim that housing affordability is at or near a 40 year low. It is cause and effect. So much for the big talk by Democrats who have proclaimed that affordable housing was a goal for Biden-Harris and their party. Even leftist observers (see second report linked below) have slammed “Corporate Democrats” for posturing on behalf of their voting base while essentially selling them out (i.e.: betraying them).




24) So, Ohanian and Schmitz or Justus and Armlovich are all busy trying to make sound and factually rationale arguments that could get more manufactured housing into the marketplace. That is potentially useful and good, as an analysis such as this one reflects. But what is needed is to fully and properly enforce existing laws.  Yet, MHI pays lip service to that without taking legal action to make good existing federal laws a practical reality. Ironically, MHI leaders have at times said much the same in their own words. It is MHARR that has been consistent. It is MHI that is regrettably duplicitous and guilty of posturing and playing the role of show horse. Instead of providing mere photos from a member to WaPo, why hasn’t MHI launched the long overdue national campaign to properly educate the public and public officials on HUD Code manufactured housing? Instead of grabbing a few seconds of empty glory in a HUD press release on the upcoming Innovative Housing Showcase, why isn’t MHI pressing for a robust campaign to that might use op-eds, media releases, and effective lobbying to get existing laws enforced? And if MHI seriously thinks that some tweak is needed to get – for example – the Duty to Serve (DTS) manufactured housing enforced, then why aren’t they asking for that language change in the legislation that they claim to support?




25) However useful Ohanian and Schmitz or Justus and Armlovich op-eds may be, however they may be used to illustrate issues that involve the mired reality of manufactured housing operating at less than an average of 80,000 homes per year for much of the past decade (per MHARR), what is needed is to engage those advocates and others in a broader effort to get existing laws fully, routinely, and properly enforced.  Yet that is oddly not even on MHI’s own priorities agenda document. No one  with the kind of education and experience that MHI corporate and staff leaders possess can be that incompetent. The logical explanation, then, is that they are posturing efforts while slyly working to consolidate the industry. Industry meetings are occasions for consolidators to meet with and potential forge a relationship with those who later sell out to larger firms after being worn out by years of seemingly fruitless efforts. MHProNews has advanced that thesis for years. We have repeatedly given MHI leaders, their outside attorney, and their media relations person a chance to respond to those concerns. They do not directly respond. They have taken other steps to duck accountability, some of which are illustrated below.


MHI has been ducking accountability for years, as these documented examples reflect. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/4-quick-documented-examples-of-manufactured-housing-institute-leaders-publicly-ducking-out-on-explaining-their-performance-or-lack-thereof-els-howard-walker/




26) Manufactured housing has a rich history of significant accomplishments. Other forms of factory building can be useful and when possible, accepted. But as some $2 billion dollars in investor money in recent years has attested, nothing has come close to the performance of HUD Code manufactured housing when it comes to marketplace acceptance.




27) MHI claims they are working for fairness and marketplace acceptance. The evidence for that is not found in the production data, which is the acid test.



28) From the Minneapolis Federal Reserve website where a prior photo used by Schmitz and shown in the featured image for this report are the following insights from his research on the topic of monopolistic behavior and its harmful consequences.

QuoteMarksLeftSideMonopolies do drive up prices, as conventional theory suggests, but because they also reduce productivity, they often ultimately destroy most of an industry’s profits. These productivity losses are a dead weight loss for the economy, and far from trivial.

The new research also shows that monopolists typically increase prices by using political machinery to limit the output of competing products—usually by blocking low-cost substitutes. By limiting supply of these competing products, the monopolist drives up demand for its own. Thus, in contrast to conventional theory, the monopolist actually produces more of its own product than it would in a competitive market, not less. But because production of the substitutes is restricted, total output falls.

The reduction in productivity exacts a toll on all of society. But the blocking of low-cost substitutes particularly harms the poor, who might not be able to afford the monopolist’s product. Thus, monopolies drive the poor out of many markets.” Consider those observations in the light of Ast AG Kanter’s recently reported and fascinating remarks on the HIPS test for federal antitrust action.

That is the core of the research concepts that Schmitz and his colleagues have dubbed sabotaging monopolies. Here, the term monopoly that they use should be understood as including oligopoly style monopolization. Not only does Schmitz’s thesis fit, he specifically uses the example of manufactured housing as an industry that has suffered the consequences of these tactics.


Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
Strommen Manufactured Housing Institute remark: MHI is a mouthpiece of the Big 3 – in apparent Restraint of Trade and Should Not Get NOERR protection. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/masthead/true-tale-of-four-attorneys-research-into-manufactured-housing-what-they-reveal-about-why-manufactured-homes-are-underperforming-during-an-affordable-housing-crisis-facts-and-analysis/


29) MHProNews is planning a fresh executive summary, which will use pithier soundbites and snapshots that will link to more detailed articles like this one. MHI leaders are hereby invited again to respond to these concerns before such a report is published. Until then, watch for that planned update on legal cases involving several MHI and/or MHI state association members.  Until then, check out the entirely different topics linked below. Part III, our Daily Business News on MHProNews markets report segment follows. ###





Part III – Our Daily Business News on MHProNews stock market recap which features our business-daily at-a-glance update of over 2 dozen manufactured housing industry stocks.

This segment of the Daily Business News on MHProNews is the recap of yesterday evening’s market report, so that investors can see at glance the type of topics may have influenced other investors. Thus, our format includes our signature left (CNN Business) and right (Newsmax) ‘market moving’ headlines.

The macro market moves graphics below provide context and comparisons for those invested in or tracking manufactured housing connected equities. Meaning, you can see ‘at a glance’ how manufactured housing connected firms do compared to other segments of the broader equities market.

In minutes a day readers can get a good sense of significant or major events while keeping up with the trends that may be impacting manufactured housing connected investing.


Headlines from left-of-center CNN Business – 5.22.2024

  • FCC is considering AI rules for political ads
  • Court rules Elvis’ Graceland mansion cannot be foreclosed upon – for now
  • A demonstration of Microsoft’s Recall feature on a Surface Pro is pictured following the Microsoft Briefing event in Redmond, Washington on May 20, 2024.
  • Privacy experts sound the alarm over Microsoft’s latest AI tool
  • Sam Bankman-Fried is being moved to a new prison
  • BuzzFeed stock soars after Vivek Ramaswamy acquires activist stake
  • TikTok plans global layoffs in operations and marketing
  • Why OpenAI should fear a Scarlett Johansson lawsuit
  • A “For Sale” sign in front of a home in the Issaquah Highlands area of Issaquah, Washington, US, on Tuesday, April 16, 2024.
  • First-time homebuyers got squeezed last month as prices hit record April high
  • Target signage on a shopping cart outside a store front, Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2024, in Houston.
  • Inflation is biting into Target’s ‘Tar-zhay’ luster
  • How AI and bionics are helping Ukrainian soldiers return to action
  • Strong spending is obscuring an economy that isn’t working for many Americans
  • Citi just got the bill for its $189 billion trading mess-up
  • Israel’s seizure of AP equipment shows its hostile posture toward the free press
  • Shocking: Some AI developers didn’t listen when a woman rejected their offer
  • House Democrats investigate whether Big Oil colluded with OPEC to inflate gas prices
  • Apple offers biggest-ever iPhone discounts in China as annual ‘618’ shopping festival begins
  • Is India’s free press not so free after a decade of Modi?
  • Children continue to work at poultry processor, Labor Department says, even after teen worker’s recent death
  • Microsoft thinks it found a way to make PCs relevant again
  • Nissan delays shift to EVs at Mississippi factory, postponing some new models
  • Peloton ‘paused the use of’ Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ music on its platform
  • Israel reverses on seizure of Associated Press camera feed after intense backlash
  • Federal regulators are investigating fatal crash of VinFast EV


Note: to expand this image below to a larger or full size, see the instructions

below the graphic below or click the image and follow the prompts.


In the business world, the rear-view mirror is always clearer than the windshield.” – Warren Buffett. That begs a key question. Why don’t more people LOOK at the rearview mirror more so they can learn more about the patterns that influence what’s ahead? Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report can be clicked to expand. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection, you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts. https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/in-the-business-world-the-rear-view-mirror-is-always-clearer-than-the-windshield-warren-buffett-mhville-leader-showcases-efforts-to-renew-american-dream-plus-sunday-weekly/

Headlines from right-of-center Newsmax – 5.22.2024

  • Bloomberg Poll: Trump Leads Biden in Swing States
  • Former President Donald Trump leads President Joe Biden 48% to 44% across the seven swing states included in a Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll released Wednesday. [Full Story]
  • Israel at War
  • US Softens Stance on Rafah Op After Jerusalem Addresses Concerns
  • Spain, Ireland and Norway to Recognize a Palestinian State
  • Israel Orders Recall of Ambassadors to Norway, Ireland, Spain
  • Netanyahu Rules Out Gaza Resettlement After War
  • UN Halts Food Distribution in RafahOver Supply | video
  • Police Break Up Pro-Palestinian Camp at University of Michigan
  • Speaker Moves Toward Inviting Bibi to Address Congress
  • UN Aid Agency: New US Sea Route May Fail
  • Blinken: ICC Move Complicates Truce Bid
  • Newsmax TV
  • Pirates Pitcher Skenes: $100 Per Strikeout to Sinise Foundation
  • Matt Whitaker: ‘Outrageous’ FBI Greenlit Deadly Force for Trump
  • Jason Miller: Mar-a-Lago Raid Could’ve Gone Sideways | video
  • House Hopeful: ‘Ridiculous’ Deadly Force OK’d in Mar-a-Lago Raid | video
  • Fulton DA Candidate Kramer: Fani Willis’ Claims Laughable
  • Bob Barr: NRA Sets ‘Vigorous Campaign’ to Support GOP | video
  • Lanny Davis: Prosecution Can Convict Without Cohen | video
  • Israeli Minister Dermer: Condolences For Iran’s People | video
  • Newsfront
  • Inflation Knocking 61% of Americans’ Retirement Plans
  • Retirement dreams have been “significantly” curtailed in the past five years for 61% of Americans – with nearly half delaying, altering or cancelling their retirement plans, according to a Nationwide survey…. [Full Story]
  • July 4 Election Set to Determine UK Governance
  • British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Wednesday set July 4 as the [Full Story]
  • Hunter Biden’s Tax Trial Set for September as Judge Agrees to Delay, with Gun Trial Still in June
  • Russia Denies Claim It Put Anti-satellite Weapon in Space
  • Russia’s top arms control diplomat Wednesday dismissed as fake news [Full Story]
  • Related
  • Pentagon: Russia Put Weapon into Space on May 16
  • Judge Blocks Florida’s Immigrant Transportation Law
  • A federal judge temporarily blocked a Florida law that penalizes [Full Story]
  • Uvalde to Pay $2M to Families of School Shooting Victims
  • The city of Uvalde, Texas, has reached a $2 million settlement with [Full Story]
  • Study: Daily Marijuana Use Outpaces Daily Drinking
  • Daily and near-daily marijuana use is now more common than similar [Full Story]
  • McCaul Mulls Subpoena of Psaki in Afghanistan Probe
  • Michael McCaul, R-Texas, is threatening to subpoena former White [Full Story]
  • Disgruntled Worker Fatally Shoots 2, Wounds 3
  • A disgruntled employee opened fire at a linen company near [Full Story]
  • Russian Attacks on Ukraine Power Grid Blacks Out Kyiv
  • Sustained Russian attacks on Ukraine’s power grid in recent weeks [Full Story]
  • Related
  • At Least 7 Wounded in Russian Attack on Ukraine’s Chuhuiv
  • Sweden Plans $7B Military Support for Ukraine in ’24-’26
  • UK Defense Minister: China Supplying Lethal Aid to Russia
  • Zelenskyy’s Fresh Appeal: Ukraine Needs System to Counter Russia’s Guided Bombs
  • Bloomberg Poll: Trump Leads Biden in Swing States
  • Former President Donald Trump leads President Joe Biden 48% to 44% [Full Story]
  • Related
  • Bloomberg Poll: 49% Swing-State Voters Expect Violence
  • Religion Divides Voters’ Support for Biden, Trump |Platinum Article
  • Rasmussen Poll: GOP Leads by 5 on Generic House Ballot
  • DA Willis, Judge Presiding Over Ga.’s Trump Election Case, Win Primaries
  • Two key players in the Georgia election interference case against [Full Story]
  • Related
  • Trump-Backed Fong Wins Special Election for Kevin McCarthy’s Seat
  • Biden, Trump Win Ky., Oregon Primaries With Few Dissenters
  • Thomas Massie Wins in Ky. GOP Primary Despite Failed Bid to Oust Speaker
  • Incumbent Ga. Justice Pinson Tops Fmr Dem Rep. Barrow
  • Rep. Rogers Wins GOP Primary, Earns 23rd Term
  • Senate Republicans Oppose Border Security Bill
  • Senate Republicans have united to block a bipartisan border security [Full Story]
  • FCC Chair: Require AI Disclosure in Campaign TV Ads
  • Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel [Full Story]
  • NBA Reaches $2.6B Blockbuster Deal With NBC
  • The National Basketball Association has reached a media rights deal [Full Story]
  • A new study released this week found that practicing yoga can improve
  • Crandall: Improve Heart Health With Prayer
  • A new study released this week found that practicing yoga can improve [Full Story]
  • FTX’s Bankman-Fried Being Transferred to New Prison
  • Federal officials began the process to transfer Sam Bankman-Fried to [Full Story]
  • Rasmussen Poll: 53% Predict Trump Guilty Verdict
  • As the trial of former President Donald Trump in New York City nears [Full Story]
  • All 9 S.D. Tribes Ban Gov. Kristi Noem
  • South Dakota GOP Gov. Kristi Noem has been officially banned by every [Full Story]
  • Graham Seeks Answers on Failed Quantico Breach
  • Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., demanded answers from Department of [Full Story]
  • Bipartisan Lawmakers Introduce Presidential Ethics Bill
  • House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, [Full Story]
  • RNC HQ Reopens After ‘Suspicious Substance’ Found
  • The Republican National Committee’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., [Full Story]
  • Moms for Liberty Plans More Than $3M for Swing States
  • The conservative parental rights group Moms for Liberty plans to [Full Story]
  • Tariff Hikes on China EVs, Batteries, Chips Start Aug. 1
  • Some of the steep U.S. tariff increases on an array of Chinese [Full Story]
  • Biden Cancels $7.7B of Student Loans for 160,000 More
  • Biden Cancels $7.7B of Student Loans for 160,000 More
  • The Biden administration is canceling student loans for an additional [Full Story]
  • Trump Blasts Biden for Releasing Gas Reserves
  • Former President Donald Trump criticized President Joe Biden for [Full Story] | video
  • Corey Lewandowski Joins Trump Campaign
  • Corey Lewandowski, who was Donald Trumps onetime campaign manager in [Full Story] | video
  • GLAAD Says Social Media Platforms Fail at LGBTQ Safety
  • When it comes to keeping LGBTQ people safe, social media companies [Full Story]
  • Rutgers Adviser Shares Pro-Hamas Posts on Instagram, X
  • A member of Rutgers University’s board of advisers for the school’s [Full Story]
  • ‘Chaos,’ Drunk Cops Marked Search for Maine Gunman
  • The search for the gunman behind last October’s mass shooting in [Full Story]
  • Police Break Up Pro-Palestinian Camp at University of Michigan
  • Police broke up a pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of [Full Story]
  • More Newsfront
  • Finance
  • Fed Minutes: Officials See a Longer Path to Rate Cuts
  • After several unexpectedly high inflation readings, Federal Reserve officials concluded at a meeting earlier this month that it would take longer than they previously thought for inflation to cool enough to justify reducing their key interest rate…. [Full Story]
  • Related Stories
  • Traders’ Bets Show Rising Doubt for 2 Fed Rate Cuts in ’24
  • Fed Shifts Talk From Rate Cuts to Economic ‘Scenarios’
  • American Dream of Home Ownership Is Being Crushed
  • JPMorgan to Pay $100M for CFTC Trade Reporting Violations
  • Traders’ Bets Show Rising Doubt for 2 Fed Rate Cuts in ’24
  • ‘Climbing the Ladder’ in Life Could Stave Off Dementia
  • More Finance
  • Health
  • Fish Oil Supplements May Harm Healthy Hearts
  • Folks regularly taking fish oil supplements might not be helping their health as much as they might think, a new study suggests. Regular use of fish oil supplements could increase the risk of first-time heart disease and stroke among those with good heart health, new…… [Full Story]
  • Weight-Loss Drug Use Soaring Among Young Americans
  • ‘Climbing the Ladder’ in Life Could Stave Off Dementia
  • Only Half of Americans Could Help in Emergency
  • Pedestrians Twice as Likely to Be Hit By Electric Cars

Note: to expand this image below to a larger or full size, see the instructions

below the graphic below or click the image and follow the prompts.

In instances such as Apollo, Berkshire Hathaway, Blackstone or others, manufactured housing may only be part of their corporate interests. Note: depending on your browser or device, many images in this report and others on MHProNews can be clicked to expand. Click the image and follow the prompts. For example, in some browsers/devices you click the image and select ‘open in a new window.’ After clicking that selection you click the image in the open window to expand the image to a larger size. To return to this page, use your back key, escape or follow the prompts.
Notice: MHProNews invites the firms named in these reports to respond to any concerns about possibly inaccurate information via email that identifies the concern and offers evidence that sheds a different light on the topic discussed. That said, until 5.9.2024, neither MHI nor most MHI publicly traded ‘insider brands’ have done so. They’ve been repeatedly invited to do so, including but not limited to an outreach on Dec 7, 2o23 and Feb 25, 2024.


mas kovach mhpronews shopping with soheyla .jp

Get our ‘read-hot’ industry-leading 

get our ‘read-hot’ industry-leading emailed headline news updates

Scroll to Top