‘It’s in the interests of the blinded to keep others blind’ paraphrases a keen remark near the end of Rev. Robert Barron’s video here. Barron’s remark reminds thinkers of author Upton Sinclair’s insight: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
The documentary “The Crooked E” is about Enron. “Chasing Madoff” “is the compelling…story of Harry Markopolos and his team’s ten-year struggle to expose the harrowing truth behind the infamous Madoff scandal…Markopolos pieced together a chain of white-collar predators, consisting of financial fraudsters, lieutenants and henchmen, all linked” to the roughly $64-billion-dollar fraud many in media, government and business largely ignored for years.
Theranos, WorldCom, Sam Bankman Fried and the 2008 housing/financial crisis are examples of massive frauds and/or systemic failures hiding in plain sight for years in the ‘information age.’
Examples of turning a blind eye are useful while considering how the avoidable housing crisis that harmed millions is examined.
The true cost of ignoring the affordable housing crisis
Per McKinsey, National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) and National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) researchers, the lack of affordable housing near where it’s needed costs the U.S. economy about $2 trillion annually in lost gross domestic product (GDP).
The 21st-century story of manufactured housing reads like a proverbial tale of two cities.
- There are a number of news stories about predatory behavior involving certain players in the manufactured housing industry.
- The Census Bureau and others have said that manufactured housing is often half the cost per square foot as new site-built conventional housing. Reams of research, including Pew, HUD, Freddie Mac and others, documented the potential and importance of manufactured housing as an unsubsidized path to solving the U.S. housing crisis.
Which begs questions.
- Why has the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) largely failed to provide a robust public-facing collection of good research?
- Why has MHI allowed laws meant to benefit manufactured housing to go largely or completely unenforced without taking legal action?
- Cui bono? Who benefits from manufactured home underproduction and nearly dormant development?
Table 1: Manufactured housing production: Capacity vs reality
| Period / Indicator | Evidence / Source | Key numbers | Implication |
| 1995–2000 HUD Code production | HUD/IBTS/Census Bureau data; MHProNews/MHARR data and analyses | Peak 373,143 homes in 1998; 2,033,545 from 1995–2000 (averaged 338,924 annually). | Demonstrated higher‑volume capacity when leadership and policies align. |
| 2001–2025 HUD Code production | HUD/IBTS/Census Bureau data; MHProNews/MHARR data and analyses | 2,333,138 million homes over 24 years (93,326/year) | Chronic underperformance despite population growth and affordability crisis. |
| 21st‑century underproduction vs. 1995–2000 | MHProNews underproduction analyses | 6.1+ million homes “missing” (annual deficit of 245,598 manufactured homes from 1995-2000 baseline). | Quantifies lost opportunity to relieve national housing shortage estimated at ~ 7 to 10 million units. |
| Annualized output | MHARR production reports | 8,926 homes produced in June 2026 (50,359 YTD 2026 vs. 53,754 in 2025, 6.3% decline). | Confirms stagnation/decline. |
NAR’s Realtor said some 25.2 million adult children live with parents, though 70% are employed. While there are several reasons why 25–34-year-olds haven’t moved out, near the top is the lack of affordable housing.
Freddie Mac research asserted most Americans would consider buying a manufactured home. In fact, MHProNews research suggests 9+ million Americans shopped for manufactured homes (MHs) online in a one-year timeframe. Yet only 102,738 bought a new home in 2025? Why the fallout?
The reasons are many. Two quickly come into focus.
- Zoning and placement barriers, which HUD, Pew, MHARR and other researchers have long acknowledged.
- A lack of competitive chattel lending. The Federal Register, citing FHFA, said:
“Borrowers, particularly those seeking personal property (chattel) loans, face a 65.6% denial rate compared to just 8.8% for site-built homes. Even when approved…borrowers are…subject to higher interest rates—averaging 9.24% for personal property loans versus 6.63% for traditional mortgages—creating a “financing gap” that…[partially]…offsets the lower purchase price of the home itself.”
Applying approval disparity data, Gemini estimated 129,646 more manufactured homes could have sold in 2024. A 125% increase based on applicants seeking manufactured home financing. That’s roughly 1.3 million homes per decade denied affordable manufactured home seekers. Cui bono?
For chattel lenders, no DTS or FHA Title I is a benefit. Many are MHI members.
In a prior HousingWire series article, it was recalled that manufactured homes once outsold RVs. That’s no longer true.
- MHProNews research spotlighted how from 1995-2000 manufactured homes outproduced RVs by 1.22 to 1.
- From 2001 to 2024, RVs outpaced MHs by 3.69 to 1.
RVs are usually a discretionary purchase. Manufactured homes, by contrast, are an affordable housing necessity for millions. Both are produced in production centers.
A tipster with ties to MHI provided documents to MHProNews asserting the institute’s corporate and senior staff ‘torpedoed’ efforts to launch an image and education campaign mimicking the RVIA’s successful GoRVing effort.
MHI has known since 2005 that a campaign was needed, because MHI commissioned the Roper Report that specifically called for a GoRVing-style effort. Because such campaigns are paid by floor dues, consumers pay for the marketing.
Who benefits from underproduction? Industry consolidators who are routinely MHI members.
| Tool / mandate | What the law enables | Observed MHI posture | Consolidation relevance |
| Enhanced preemption (2000 Reform Law) | Overrides exclusionary local zoning | No litigation to enforce federal preemption; weak ‘lip service’ advocacy | Keeps placement barriers high, protecting portfolio community operators and producers. The later are often vertically integrated in retail and finance. |
| Duty to Serve(HERA 2008) | Requires support for manufactured housing, including chattel | No litigation by MHI to enforce existing finance laws | Financing friction suppressed production, aiding consolidators. |
| FHA Title I / federal lending programs | Could expand affordable MH lending | Near zero originations, lack of MHI legal pressure | Maintains scarcity and higher margins. |
| Research & transparency | True “institutes” publish robust research; properly promote profession | MHI produces minimal public-facing research | Fits “institute’s” behavior reducing production, benefiting consolidators with greater capital access. |
Compare MHI behavior to NAHB or NAR.
Table 3: NAR and NAHB vs. Manufactured Housing Institute
| Criterion | National Association of Realtors | National Association of Home Builders | Manufactured Housing Institute |
| Primary research | Dedicated research = demographic and affordability reports | Economics and policy departments; regulatory cost studies | Relies on IBTS/Census MHS; minimal public-facing reports/analysis, plugs awards to firms including D or F BBB ratings |
| Affordability & young households | Tracks co‑residence, household formation | Tracks starter home construction, land availability | No substantive research on young adult housing needs |
| Policy advocacy | Pushes zoning reform, supply expansion | Advocates regulatory relief, land access | No fee‑simple public push for MH subdivisions ~ $500-$700 total PITI monthly |
| “Institute” behavior | Advances study/knowledge | Advances homebuilding practice | Functions mainly for dominant members |
Former MHI chairman and 21st Mortgage CEO Tim Williams previously told MHProNews: “There are good arguments to be made that we [i.e.: MHI] should respond to every story, refute every statistic, and make our case to the public.” With all due respect to Williams and MHI leaders, can they spell “disconnect?” A good ‘umbrella’ trade group is supposed to protect-educate-promote (P.E.P.) their industry.
Is it any wonder MHARR and others slam MHI?
Measuring performance beyond optics and awards
Lip service and awards for the sake of optics isn’t performance. Performance should be measured by production, developing and happy customer statistics.
Borrowing/applying the phrase “deception and misdirection” from Capital Research, systemic failures impacting manufactured housing, the Crooked E, Madoff and others involved “deception and misdirection.”
It doesn’t take a genius to realize something went wrong at MHI. Samuel Strommen, Maris Jensen, Doug Ryan, James Schmitz Jr. and Mark Weiss are among those raising antitrust concerns beyond the national class action antitrust suit involving 11 defendants, eight of which are reportedly MHI members.
Affordable housing seekers, taxpayers and smaller businesses paid the price. State and federal officials turned a blind eye. MHI has repeatedly declined to comment. Crooked E and Crooked I?
L. A. “Tony” Kovach is the co-founder and publisher of ManufacturedHomeProNews.com and ManufacturedHomeLivingNews.com.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners. To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [emailprotected].