Comparing RV and manufactured housing data sheds important light on the US affordable housing crisis
Disclosing what two former Presidents/CEOs of the Manufactured Housing Institute say undermines the narrative
There is a widespread history that has been circulating for years in what we affectionately call MHVille. According to that narrative, the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) represents “all segments” of the manufactured housing industry. To quote the MHI, they are: “The leading advocates” of manufactured housing. MHI’s home page tells believers: “We are a trusted partner, advocate and industry leader.” Indeed, at a glance the MHI website may seem similar to other trade association websites. It is only upon careful observation of the knowledgeable that a different truth begins to emerge from what they are saying.
Under “Issues and Advocacy” on the MHI website it says: “MHI is the federal policy voice for all segments of the manufactured housing industry, serving as the industry’s leading advocate on government and legislative issues. MHI ensures that the manufactured housing industry speaks as a united voice in Washington.” With those thoughts in mind, a series of facts and quotes from MHI’s past presidents and chief executives (CEOs), combined with data from the recreational vehicle (RV) and manufactured home industries shed a sobering light on the bold claims of the trade association in Arlington, VA.
In interview no The Wall Street Transcript (TWST) the following question was posed to the president and CEO of the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI), Chris Stinebert. “Are all these problems [that depressed manufactured housing sales] much behind you?” MHI’s Stinebert says the following.” “I would have to agree. Inventory levels are very good and are back to balanced levels. The high rate of return on loans made in the 1990s, which plagued the industry, is back to manageable levels. The performance of loans made in the last few years continues to improve. Underwriting guidelines and mortgage financing criteria have been improved so much that some feel there has been overreaction and over-restraint and that some credit-worthy buyers or customers don’t have the purchasing power. manufactured home but they are easily eligible for a site-built home. But there are other good features.”
That was 2004 when the entire industry produced only 130,748 new HUD Code homes. Fast forward to 2015.
MHI President and CEO Richard “Dick” Jennison said the following to several industry experts in a taped speech at the Louisville Manufactured Housing Show.
“Why not half a million” new manufactured homes are sold every year, Jennison asked bluntly.We can get there,” The MHI manager assured his audience.
To set the context, during the 1990s, the manufactured housing (MH) industry produced 2,033,545 new HUD Code homes from 1995 to 2000. That’s an average of 338,924 new homes produced per year for six years.
According to the latest data from the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR) for November 2025: “Newly released statistics show that HUD Code manufacturers produced 7,203 new homes in November 2025, a 16.2% decrease from the 8,597 new HUD Code homes produced in November 2020 total produced in November 2020. 95,938 in the HUD Code, compared to 96,236 in the same period in 2024. From 2021 to 2024, the manufactured home industry produced 411,137 new homes. That’s just over 102,784 new homes in the last four years.
Therefore, the industry was operating at a high multiple of 3.297x annualized earnings quarter of a century ago, when the population was small than now. Although that comes up from time to time, why doesn’t that data reflect a true statement in the general report about the affordable housing crisis?
Next, let’s compare the details of manufactured homes and the RV industry. From 1995 to 2000, RVIA reported 1,663,104 new RVs or 277,184 new RVs per year. Domestic industry production averaged more than 18 percent of the total production value of RVs shipped in those years. Fast forward to the years 2021 to 2024. While home construction produced 411,137 new homes, the RV industry shipped 1,740,415 new units of all types (trailers and motorhomes). In other words, RVs trailed manufactured homes by about 18 percent from 1995-2000. But from 2021 to 2024, RVs outnumber manufactured homes by 4.23 to 1.
4.23 new RVs were shipped for every 1 manufactured home.
RVs are like that by choice to many people, or ‘luxury.’
In contrast, manufactured homes are affordable homes the need for about 22 million Americans.
But when one reads the pro-MHI comments, either directly from MHI or from MHI member bloggers/trade media who mimic MHI’s talking points, one would think that MHI’s real estate industry leaders are doing a great job. But if that’s the case, then why is the manufactured housing industry operating at only about 27 percent of its 1998 peak?
In November, HousingWire published an op-ed full of evidence quoting MHI board member Sam Landy, JD.
Landy explained that design and financial constraints keep homes built from reaching their potential. That is strikingly similar to the “bottleneck” words that MHARR has been saying for years suppressing the true potential of manufactured housing. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, or maybe Landy was comparing what MHARR says to what MHI says and does?
What is clear is that the HousingWire op-ed here did not receive a public reprimand from Landy. Landy is the leader of the multi-billion dollar UMH Properties project, so he has the power to issue a press release whenever he wants to.
According to legal sources arrested in a pending case of dishonesty in houses built for MHProNews: “We plan to file an amended complaint on January 26.” Time will tell, but there are reasons to believe those advocates it is possible extended their appeal in a way that directly points the legal finger at MHI as an important part of their claims. If so, you read it here first. As the HousingWire op-ed stated: “The MHI is the most visible group of tradesmen to reference [Judge] Valderrama and appellants. MHI no longer lists members publicly, but according to an earlier list published by MHI available here, 8 of the 11 defendants are members of MHI.”
The huge difference between RV shipments and the production of homes produced since 2000 raises many questions.
• Given the fact that the leaders of the manufactured housing companies and the leaders of MHI’s senior staff are educated, experienced veterans, how is it possible that they have failed to pursue legal action to enforce existing laws that would result in increased sales of new homes as well as production?
• MHARR remains focused on calling for stricter enforcement of the Manufactured Housing Development Act and its “enhanced preparation” provision. MHARR calls for full implementation of Duty to Serve (DTS) manufactured housing.
• On paper, MHI similarly says it supports “federal preemption” and DTS. But in recent years, MHI has pretended that MHARR does not exist and is meeting with regular real estate trade groups. Logically, if MHI was determined to obtain an “enhanced exemption” provision of federal law that would overcome zoning and placement barriers that restrict sales as well as production, then why did MHI not cooperate with MHARR?
• When at least two MHI members asked the Biden-Harris (D) era FHFA to enforce DTS on chattel loans, why didn’t MHI join MHARR in that effort?
AI-powered Copilot, after reviewing the features of the report linked here, said the following.
“A Good Faith Real Estate Agency Can Be…
o Implemented the Manufactured Housing Development Act of 2000 as intended.
o Mandatory Activation to Work.
o He fought against regional discrimination.
o Independents are not protected.
o Expanded consumer access.
o Grow the industry back to its proven potential.”
MHI would have accepted MHARR’s proposal in 2019 to sue to invoke the federal preemption statute.
Per Mark Weiss, JD, President and CEO of MHARR.
“MHI’s insistence on the pending legislation – as I noted in my answer to your first question – is essentially “missing the boat.” Indeed, we should all want the “permanent chassis” mandate removed from the law. Its anachronistic and limits or enables expensive installation configurations where manufactured homes could provide a cost-effective solution for more Americans in a wide variety of locations. But that, in itself, is low-hanging fruit, not a real challenge or important that is maintained by those who wish to suppress the manufactured housing industry or block (or eliminate) it as competitors in the housing market.”
Apart from protecting the NAHB, it is understood that they are fighting for the interests of ordinary builders.
But what is more difficult to understand is why the key members of MHI seem to focus so much on integration and “optics,” given that Sam Landy who leads UMH said that their business model produces a high rate of return, and UMH does so without ‘presumptuous’ behavior. That said, there is a case to be made that federal and state investigators, as well as mainstream media reporters, should be investigating MHI and their coverage-oriented products. Who says? Many artificial intelligence (AI) systems are known for their pattern recognition capabilities.
When a draft version of this article was submitted to Gemini’s AI-powered analysis of evidence (FEA), Google’s AI said: merging of these two datasets criticism of the effectiveness of the trade organization is currently not found in any other common area. The “4.23 to 1 efficiency ratio” of RVs over manufactured homes appears to be an early analytical finding of this framework.” Gemini also stated: “The [op-ed] correctly identifies that while the population has grown, the “need” (MH) industry has shrunk while the “discretionary” (RV) industry has expanded.” ##
Tony Kovach is the managing member of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners. To contact the editor responsible for this piece: [email protected].
