Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Joe Donnelly’

2012 Election Results and Coming Lame Duck Session

November 9th, 2012 No comments

MHI logo posted in MHProNewsWhile commentators will be picking over the remains of the 2012 elections for weeks to come and discussing what the political landscape will look like over the coming year and what impact the elections will have as Congress prepares to return for a lame-duck session, MHI wanted to provide members with some feedback and analysis of the immediate aftermath and outlook for the coming weeks.

While votes in Florida are still being tabulated, President Barak Obama successfully won 303 electoral votes and secured a second term as President. By winning nearly every key swing state including Colorado, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, Obama was able to successfully hold off Governor Mitt Romney’s challenge. It is expected that once the count is finalized, Obama will also garner Florida’s 29 electoral votes. Given Democratic gains in the House and Senate, it is not widely anticipated that Obama will seek to strike a conciliatory mood with Republicans on fiscal issues, or on issues related to a softening of Dodd-Frank.

An even more dramatic surprise was the performance of Democrats in U.S. Senate races. While defending 33 Senate seats this cycle, Democrats were widely predicted to loose (up to) a total of four seats in that chamber. Instead, Democrats we able to successfully win two additional seats and will expand on their current majority during the 113th Congress to 55:45 (Ds:Rs). Included in these were victories by key manufactured housing industry supporters Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and current Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN). Rep. Donnelly successfully won the Senate seat in Indiana being vacated by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN).

Republicans are still firmly in control of the House of Representatives. While a number of House races are still being decided, current tallies peg a net Democratic gain of five seats—far short of the 25 needed by Democrats to regain control of the House.

Looking forward, Congress is tentatively scheduled to return November 14 and work up until the Thanksgiving holiday. The House and Senate would then reconvene in December to complete work in time to adjourn prior to the Holidays. Issues expected to dominate the lame duck session, include:

  • · FY 2013 appropriations
  • · Extension of 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
  • · Sequestration
  • · Increase of debt ceiling

During the lame duck session, MHI will be working to pass legislation (H.R. 3849 and S. 3484) reforming portions of the Dodd-Frank and SAFE Acts. The session could potentially offer opportunities to attach portions of these bills to larger measures moving through each chamber. During this time, MHI members a strongly urged to continue contacting their members of Congress to request they co-sponsor either H.R. 3849 or S. 3484. For more information, access the MHI action alert at www.mfghome.org.

JasonBoehlertManufacturedHousingInstituteSeniorVPLogoMHIlogoQuoteMHProNews

Editor’s Note, this graphic was added on 11.28.2017, by the editor of MHProNews. The content, and the original email that delivered it, are the same as shown.

For your reference, we have attached the following analysis performed by MHI external consultants summarizing the impacts and outcomes of the 2012 election:

  • Porterfield & Lowenthal: overview of the impact the 2012 election will have on banking and financial services issues, including an outlook for the 113th Congress.
  • SNR Denton: Broad and in-depth analysis of the 2012 Presidential election, including overview of House, Senate, Gubernatorial elections and ballot initiatives.

In addition, we have included a win-loss summary of candidates the MHI-PAC contributed to during the 2012 election cycle. In total, the MHI-PAC distributed in excess of $126,000 to support 59 federal candidates. Of those candidates running in 2012 (excluding retiring members and Senators not currently in cycle), the MHI-PAC boasted a win percentage of 93 percent.

jason-boehlert-mhi-VicePresidentManufacturedHousingInstituteMHILogoManufactuired-Housing-pro=news-by Jason Boehlert
Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI)
Vice President of Government Affairs

MHI PAC and the Upcoming Midterm Elections

October 26th, 2010 2 comments

Industry in Focus Reporter Eric MillerWASHINGTON, DC – Indiana representative Joe Donnelly is the top recipient of contributions from the Manufactured Housing Institute Political Action Committee (MHI PAC). According to OpenSecrets.org, Donnelly received a $6,000 contribution during the 2010 election cycle.

As of October 13, 2010, receipts totaled $101,019.00 with $79,590.00 cash on hand. Total spent amounts to $118,584.00. Sixty-five percent of contributions were made to Democrats and 32 percent went to Republicans, with specific Republicans receiving some of the largest contributions.

Donnelly and several key members of the Manufactured Housing Congressional Caucasus are facing tight races. The biggest recipients in House of Representatives races include Barney Frank (D-MA) with $3,000 and Bill Posey (R-FL) also with $3,000 and Baron Hill (D-IN) $2,000. In the Senate races, top recipients include Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) with $4,000 and Richard Shelby (R-AL) with $3,500.

House
Total to Democrats: $31,750
Total to Republicans: $15,500
Recipient Total
Aderholt, Robert B (R-AL) $1,000
Bachus, Spencer (R-AL) $1,000
Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA) $2,000
Boyd, Allen (D-FL) $2,000
Brown-Waite, Ginny (R-FL) $1,000
Calvert, Ken (R-CA) $1,000
Camp, Dave (R-MI) $2,000
Chandler, Ben (D-KY) $1,000
Childers, Travis W (D-MS) $2,000
Clyburn, James E (D-SC) $1,000
Davis, Geoff (R-KY) $2,000
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $6,000
Driehaus, Steve (D-OH) $2,000
Duncan, John J (Jimmy) Jr (R-TN) $2,000
Etheridge, Bob (D-NC) $1,000
Frank, Barney (D-MA) $3,000
Hill, Baron (D-IN) $2,000
Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $2,500
Matsui, Doris O (D-CA) $1,000
McHenry, Patrick (R-NC) $1,000
Miller, Brad (D-NC) $1,000
Olver, John W (D-MA) $1,000
Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) $250
Posey, Bill (R-FL) $3,000
Scott, David (D-GA) $2,000
Souder, Mark E (R-IN) $1,000
Tanner, John (D-TN) $1,000
Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $1,000
Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH) $250
Tonko, Paul (D-NY) $250
Senate
Total to Democrats: $12,000
Total to Republicans: $6,500
Recipient Total
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,000
Corker, Bob (R-TN) $1,000
DeMint, James W (R-SC) $1,000
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) $1,000
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR) $4,000
Murkowski, Lisa (I-AK) $2,000
Nelson, Bill (D-FL) $2,000
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $1,000
Reed, Jack (D-RI) $1,000
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $2,000
Shelby, Richard C (R-AL) $3,500
Wicker, Roger (R-MS) $1,000

Based on data released by the FEC on October 25, 2010.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

In terms of voting records on industry related issues and the S.A.F.E. Act, as well as Title 1 reform and Duty to Serve, were all contained in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA). In the Senate, Reid, Shelby and Lincoln all voted for the Act. Then-Senator Obama did not vote. In the House, Donnelly, Hill and Frank all voted for the bill. Posey was serving in the Florida State Senate at the time. Would-be Speaker of the House John Boehner voted against HERA.

The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) has also provided contributions to these candidates. As of October 13, Donnelly received $1,000 from the NAHB PAC. Frank received $5,000 from NAHB, as did Posey. Hill is not listed as having received a contribution from NAHB. In the Senate races, NAHB gave $2,500 to Lincoln and $5,000 to Shelby. In contrast to MHI PAC’s contributions, the NAHB gave 39 percent to Democrats and 60 percent to Republicans. The total spent by the Homebuilders in the 2010 cycle is $3,012,057.

MHI-PAC contributions chart
Chart created by MHMSM.com’s Industry in Focus Reporter Eric Miller from information available on opensecrets.org

Contributions by the National Association of Realtors far exceed that of either the NAHB or MHI. As of October 13, the Realtors gave 58 percent to Democrats and 41 percent to Republicans. Donnelly received $6,000 from the Realtors, Frank received $6,000, Hill received $6,000 and Posey was handed $5,000. In the Senate races, Lincoln received $14,000 and Shelby $3,000. Total expenditures for Realtors in the 2010 cycle are $11,218,449.00.

Democrats currently hold a 256-178 majority in the House of Representatives, with one vacancy. The battle for control of the House focuses primarily on 64 competitive races–58 Democratic-held seats and 6 Republican-held seats including 9 members of the Manufactured Housing Caucus.

According to MHI, two races that are particularly important to the manufactured housing industry are those including Congressman Baron Hill (D-IN) and Congressman Joe Donnelly (D-IN). Beyond financial contributions, MHI says it will be working with members in these key districts to get-out-the-vote for their candidates.

According to their report to members at their Denver meeting in September, MHI believes as do many political analysts that a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives is possible. If so, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is in line to become Speaker of the House. A GOP majority would mean major changes as a number of senior Democrats chairing committees important to manufactured housing would face demotions to lesser roles including Housing Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), a staunch supporter of manufactured housing.

The current Senate line-up is 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans and 2 Independents. The Republicans must win 10 seats to recapture the Senate. The odds favor continued Democratic control, but a significant surge by Republican candidates could lift the Republicans into striking distance of gaining control of the Senate.

More information on the MHI PAC is available at http://www.manufacturedhousing.org ##

Ken Rishel report on the Manufactured Housing Roundtable

June 3rd, 2010 No comments

Precision Capital Funding logoMr. Rishel attended the June 2 Manufactured Housing Roundtable in Elkhart, Indiana regarding FHA Title I and Title II lending. It was a national
meeting hosted by Congressman Joe Donnelly from Indiana, MHI, and MHARR.
Every affected government agency was represented by their top people.
Attendees also included the top people from national industry lenders, the
owners of various manufacturers, industry consultants, and major community
owners Mr. Rishel will cover this meeting in his upcoming June newsletter.
Below, you will find the letter he wrote to Congressman Donnelly as a
result of this meeting.
submittd by Juline Anderson at CaptiveFinance.net


The Hon Joe Donnelly
207 West Colfax Avenue
South Bend, IN 46601

Dear Mr. Donnelly:

I first want to thank you for the time and attention you have given to the issues of the manufactured housing industry and for the time you put into the meeting at Elkhart, Indiana on Wednesday, June, 2nd. As I’m sure you gathered from the attendance, while this issue is important to your constituents and the area you represent, it is also of national importance. You are to be commended for your leadership role in addressing both the issues of government assisted financing of manufactured homes and the unintended consequences coming from the mandates of the SAFE Act.

As a longtime member of the manufactured housing industry who will not directly benefit from any positive efforts coming out of FHA financing, I still feel the importance of industry access to this type of financing, As a result. I am writing to share my view on what came out of the meeting in Elkhart, and how your role will be critical in achieving results favorable to your district and the entire nation.

I came away from that meeting with the feeling that the critical agencies represented were there because they had little choice and they were hostile to engaging their agencies in chattel (personal property) finance. I believe their reasons are as follows:

  • The histories of chattel finance of manufactured homes are replete with failures and losses.
  • While they are loath to admit it, they lack the experience and knowledge to correct the problem.
  • Like any government agency at the state or federal level change is difficult, especially if it requires taking direction or assistance from the private sector.

I surmise it is easier for them to resist their duty to serve by subversion partly because they have convinced themselves that it isn’t possible to successfully make chattel loans on manufactured homes and not lose money. If this assessment is correct, their attitudes will condemn Title I to failure before it has an opportunity to succeed.

It was mentioned numerous times that the specialty lenders have attempted to share their data on loan portfolio performances with these agencies without much success. If they actually analyzed the data, the truth would soon become apparent to them and I believe they have minimized this data as a way of continuing in their beliefs rather than face the truth of their inadequacies.

Here are some truths about manufactured housing chattel finance:

  • At least three times in the history of the industry, greed coupled with incompetence has led to spectacular meltdowns and failures of manufactured home chattel loan portfolios.
  • Banks and Credit Unions are very wary of chattel loans for manufactured homes partly because they lack experience and expertise and partly because their regulators discourage such lending because so many institutions have lost money making these loans.

Yet,

  • I, and the companies I own or represent, have never lost money making chattel loans on manufactured homes. None of our investors have ever lost a penny either. We have helped banks, credit unions, and insurance companies build some of their most profitable portfolios, as well as pension funds and thousands of private investors.
  • Triad Financial Services, represented by Don Glisson Jr. at the meeting in Elkhart is a 50-year-old company that until about 12 years ago made only chattel loans on manufactured homes has had a stellar history of loan portfolio performance. (They now also do mortgage loans for manufactured homes and own a subsidiary company approved to do Title I and II.)
  • Warren Buffet bought Clayton Homes in order to acquire their finance arms that were engaged in manufactured home finance.
  • Jim Clayton utilized a considerable part of the funds he received from Warren Buffet to start a bank that is very active in manufactured home finance on a national basis.
  • There is over five billion dollars in chattel loans currently that are being made through captive finance organizations funded by the owners of manufactured housing communities and retailers. The people that sell these homes are, in effect, putting their money where their mouth is. Two organizations, Precision Capital Funding and Origen/ManageAmerica are helping them do it (our method is very hands on while theirs is through purveying documents and software) and while I cannot speak for the second organization, I believe they, like Precision have extensive records on performance that would put the older federal histories to shame.

What is the cause of this disparate performance history? To understand means one has to accept the premise that loaning money for chattel loans on manufactured homes is a very specialized area of lending that requires special knowledge and expertise to do it successfully. This knowledge starts with setting up a system that has sufficient safeguards to eliminate dishonesty that is more than just a paper solution.

An industry specific credit matrix is also critical. There are reasons beyond just the four Cs of credit that affect loan performance that are unique to chattel lending on manufactured homes that must be taken into account when considering a loan, and I believe these are totally unknown or undervalued by most organizations when they begin to make these loans.

Because of the nature of the typical borrower, servicing properly must be different than servicing for a typical site built home. Proper servicing can lower nonperformance rates dramatically.

The replevins process also needs to be industry specific because the approach to the process can critically affect both the costs of replevins and the performance of the collateral. The current process in FHA rule is typical but is myopic and costly.

Collateral performance is critical to the whole of the transaction. The lower the cost of cleaning and refurbishing the better for the portfolio. The higher the dollars recovered the better the portfolio performs. It is a given there will be repossessions, but it is not a given that repossessions mean overall losses.

There was some offering of industry financial participation in loss prevention from several of the attendees that basically went unheeded by the government agencies. I would consider this a critical component to the success of any loan program for several reasons.

I believe these agencies will need legislative pressure or mandates in order to take this issue seriously. If they started thinking how they could make chattel finance for manufactured homes work instead of thinking, “it can’t work”, that would be a start, and this is something you can accomplish if you feel it is appropriate.

I would further suggest they recognize the people and organizations within our industry that could provide them with invaluable expertise and information in all of the key areas discussed in this letter. My suggestion would be to work through MHIwith the goal of getting Don Glisson Jr. of Triad Financial Services to head whatever effort should be made.

Through my work as the former Chairman of the Illinois Manufactured Home Quality Assurance Board and other governmental associations, I recognize the difficulty of any government agency implementing rules, policies, and procedures that originate from outside the agency itself. Perhaps an advisory board could be created consisting of industry lenders and consultants that were properly vetted and authorized to recommend policy and procedures that would assure the success of a chattel lending program, as well as supply historical performance data that could and should be utilized in formulating appropriate loan policies and mathematically modeled credit matrixes that actually work. In addition, that data would allow a proper reserve fund to be created to absorb any shortfalls as a result of non-performing loans to help assure no loss of taxpayer monies.

Should you want or need further information from me, I stand ready to assist you in any reasonable way I can. Again, I want to thank you for your attention to the manufactured housing industry and the people affected by your assistance. Please be assured that I will in the June issue of The Chattel Finance Newsletter, inform my 9,000 plus readers of your positive assistance to our industry both on the finance issue and in regard to the SAFE Act, giving you the credit you deserve for your efforts.

Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth Rishel

Kenneth Rishel
Precision Capital Funding
Publisher of The Chattel Finance Newsletter
(217) 971-3968
kennethrishel@captivefinance.net


For more information on this important issue:

FHFA Proposes Rule on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Requirements for Underserved Markets

Summit Meeting Addresses Industry Finance Issues

Stage Set for Action on Title I Moratorium

Long-Awaited “Duty to Serve” Proposal Unveiled

Ken Rishel report on the Manufactured Housing Roundtable