Is BOXABL Shopping for a New Future?

 

BOXABL recently announced that it is open to mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, land contributions, talent additions, and technology partnerships across the housing industry.

On the surface, this sounds like an ambitious expansion strategy. It may also signal that BOXABL wants to evolve beyond manufacturing its Casita product and become a broader housing platform.

The company completed its merger with FG Merger II Corp. in July and now trades publicly on Nasdaq under the symbol BXBL. Having publicly traded stock potentially gives BOXABL another way to structure acquisitions and partnerships without relying entirely on cash.

Buying What Takes Years to Build

A carefully selected acquisition could give BOXABL capabilities that normally take years to develop. Those might include experienced factory leadership, established sales channels, approved building systems, entitled land, installation operations, or an existing workforce.

The challenge will be execution. Housing companies are difficult to combine because every factory has its own products, approvals, production methods, customers, and culture. Acquiring those capabilities is only the beginning; successfully integrating them is where the real work starts.

BOXABL’s public filings also show why discipline will be essential. For the first quarter of 2026, the company reported approximately $1.56 million in revenue, a $3.35 million gross loss, and a $7.6 million net loss. Those figures do not prevent BOXABL from pursuing transactions, but they make the terms, financing, and quality of any potential deal especially important.

Strategy or New Narrative?

This announcement could represent a legitimate strategic shift. BOXABL may believe it can combine its brand recognition, public-market access, patents, and promotional reach with established housing companies that already possess manufacturing experience and market presence.

The industry should watch what happens next. One well-chosen acquisition could considerably strengthen BOXABL. A collection of unrelated factories, technologies, and land deals could create greater complexity without solving its central challenge of achieving profitable production at scale.

Gary’s Observation

BOXABL has attracted attention more successfully than almost any housing startup in recent memory. Its next chapter, however, will not be judged by the number of partnership announcements it makes.

It will be judged by whether those partnerships produce homes, sustainable margins, satisfied customers, and a business capable of supporting its ambitions. Opening the door is easy. Choosing who walks through it—and successfully building something together—will be the real test.

Factory Transportation Has to Change. But Will Management Change With It?

Walk through the storage yard of almost any manufactured or modular housing factory, and you will see a transportation system that has changed very little in decades. Carriers are parked in rows, tires are slowly losing air, maintenance costs continue to increase, and valuable capital remains tied up in equipment waiting for its next assignment. Everyone accepts it because this is how modules have traditionally been transported.

Factory owners and managers know the system is far from perfect. They deal with carrier shortages, return trips, breakdowns, storage problems, scheduling conflicts, and completed modules waiting for transportation. Every transportation delay can eventually become a production problem, especially when a factory has more modules ready to ship than it has dependable carriers available.

Now imagine presenting those same managers with a completely new transportation system designed to reduce carrier dependence, eliminate unnecessary return trips, free up factory storage space, and save both time and money. Would they embrace it, support a pilot program, or quietly return to the system they already know?

I believe most factory managers would agree that something needs to change. Whether they would be willing to become early adopters is another question entirely, and the answer will depend heavily on how well the new system is explained, demonstrated, and supported.

Do Gen Z and Gen Alpha Really Look Down on Skilled Labor?

 

There is a growing belief among factory owners, contractors and older workers that Gen Z considers manual and skilled labor beneath them. According to that argument, younger people want to work from home, become influencers, or sit behind computers rather than build houses, wire electrical panels, weld steel, or operate production equipment.

There is some truth behind that perception, but it is also an oversimplification. Gen Z is not universally rejecting skilled labor, and Gen Alpha may eventually become even more receptive to it. What both generations appear to be rejecting is work that looks physically punishing, poorly managed, underpaid, and without a clearly defined future.

That is an important distinction.

Questioning Efficiencies

By: Jorie Wisnefski

One of the things I’m learning from Gary Fleisher is to stop looking at the obvious problem and start asking a different question.

Gary recently wrote about why promising innovations often don’t make it to the factory floor. His point was that the industry doesn't need to be pitched more products. It needs more education which offers more opportunities for the people who run factories and production lines to understand the problems and determine whether a solution can really work in their world.

That article sent me down a rabbit hole.

I started watching factory tour videos.

I wanted to see what these factories do to be more efficient, and I kept seeing the same thing.

Efficiency is everywhere.

Most of the factories have more than 30 production stations. They demonstrate how materials are organized, how workers move through a consistent process, and how each stage of construction happens in a controlled environment.

And the advantages of building indoors are certainly compelling. 

Weather won’t stop indoor production. Living in Chicago, I understand those benefits quite well.

Workers aren't spending time loading and unloading tools or driving from jobsite to jobsite. They show up to the same place every day, and the tools and equipment they need are already there.

Materials are staged. Tasks are repeated. Processes are standardized. The factory can control variables that are incredibly difficult to control on a traditional construction site.

There is a tremendous amount of thought going into how efficiently homes can be built.

Then the home is ready to move, and that's typically where these videos end.

I kept seeing modules being prepared for transportation. I saw completed units sitting outside factories. I saw plenty of discussion about “preparing the module for the road” and “preparing the foundation” for its arrival.

But I didn't see videos on the efficiency of moving the finished module to its final home.

That made me wonder: is the focus solely on making the factory more efficient without including the efficiency of getting the home or building to the foundation?

It feels like making a beautiful dinner without eating it. It’s really pretty to look at, but the job isn’t finished. 

To be clear, I'm not saying I’ve unearthed a transportation crisis.

I don't know that yet.

With completed modules stacked up outside a factory, it could mean there’s a transportation bottleneck. Or it could simply be part of a carefully planned staging process with reasons I don’t understand.

That's why I'm asking the question, not making an accusation.

The factory is only one part of the system.

They can build a home faster, but somebody still has to move it.

There are trucks, routes, permits, escorts, weather, traffic, cranes, installation crews, and site schedules. The factory controls what happens inside its walls. It has considerably less control once that home enters the transportation system.

And if we're serious about offsite construction helping address the housing shortage and affordability, I think the whole system needs to be addressed.

I'm still trying to understand the bottleneck. What happens if a factory becomes significantly more efficient at producing modules, but transportation capacity doesn't increase at the same pace?

Does production have to slow down? Does the factory need more storage space? Doesn’t this affect scheduling and the production line?

Or have manufacturers already figured this out, and I just don't understand yet?

I'm grateful to be learning from Gary. He's teaching me to look beyond the obvious answers to ask questions I don't know enough to answer.

People are smart, and factories are innovative, but the housing problem is bigger than any one factory or technology.

If offsite construction is going to help us build more affordable housing quickly, we have to keep looking for the places where the system slows down.

Maybe it's production, labor, materials, transportation, and installation all interacting with each other.

And if the people experiencing those challenges aren't talking to one another, it’s tough to find answers.

That's part of what Gary and I are trying to create with the upcoming educational summit. It’s not another conference where we put innovative products in front of an audience.

It's about bringing people together who understand different pieces of offsite construction and giving them an opportunity to talk about the problems they're experiencing.

To ask the uncomfortable questions. To share what has worked. To admit what hasn't. To challenge assumptions. And to look at an old problem from a completely different angle.

Solving the housing crisis isn't going to happen because someone invents one amazing product. It will happen when we start figuring out how all the pieces can work better together.

I'm going to keep watching the factory videos and asking questions because after seeing all those carefully designed production stations, I still don’t understand why the modules sit outside the factory. 

If someone in the industry already has the answer to making the journey to the foundation just as efficient as the journey through the factory, I want to hear it.

And if they don't, that's the kind of question we should be discussing together.

The home isn't finished when it leaves the factory. It still has to make it home.

Fresh Eyes on Offsite Construction

Questioning Efficiency explores a simple question: if modular factories have become highly efficient at building homes, what happens to that efficiency once the home leaves the factory? 

Jorie Wisnefski’s article for the series, Fresh Eyes on Offsite Construction, looks at transportation, staging, and installation as potentially overlooked parts of the offsite construction system. It also argues that solving housing challenges requires examining how all those pieces work together, not just optimizing the factory.

Where Did Modular’s 20% Savings Go?

Twenty years ago, the modular housing industry walked around with quiet confidence. Sales representatives stood at home shows, builder meetings, and industry events and proudly explained that modular construction could deliver a home for as much as 20% less than conventional site-built construction.

At the time, many of them were right.

Factories were relatively lean, transportation was manageable, building codes were less complicated, overhead was lower, and most modular buyers were satisfied with homes that did not test the limits of architectural design or transportation logistics. Factories could build similar floor plans repeatedly, purchase materials in volume, and move modules through production without stopping for constant engineering revisions.

Today, that story has changed.

In many markets, modular construction comes in at approximately the same price as site-built construction. In some cases, it costs more. Developers, investors, builders, and prospective homeowners are now asking an obvious question: What happened to modular’s promised 20% savings?

Having watched this industry grow, stall, innovate, reinvent itself, and occasionally break its own heart, I believe the answer is relatively simple.

The world changed, and modular did not change fast enough.

The reasons behind the disappearance of that cost advantage, however, reveal something important about where modular construction is today and where it needs to go next.

Changing the Code Is the Easy Part. Changing the Factory Is Not.

After writing two articles about how the Road to Housing legislation could open new opportunities for modular factories to build homes under the HUD Code, I decided to send them to several people whose opinions I trust. I wasn’t looking for compliments or confirmation that I had everything figured out. I wanted the kind of honest response that might expose what I had overlooked.

One of those responses came from Bob Bender, an experienced advisor to both the modular and manufactured housing industries. Bob agreed that the articles raised important observations, but he also reminded me that changing federal rules and changing the realities inside a factory are two very different things.

The legislation may open a door, but Bob’s response made one thing very clear: a modular factory cannot simply put a HUD label on one of its existing homes and declare itself ready to compete in manufactured housing.

The Fires We Remember

by Jorie Wisnefski

The current wildfires in Washington have made me reflect on old fears. 

As a little girl, I went through a phase where I wouldn't sleep over at friends' houses because I was convinced there would be a fire and I wouldn't be able to get back to my family. I understood that fire is a living, breathing beast, and it’s impossible to ignore. It still fascinates me.

As I thought about this week's Fresh Eyes article, I couldn't help but wonder about fire safety in the modular world.

As someone who has spent much of the last decade immersed in the wood industry, fire is never far from the conversation. Whether it's wildfires, lumbermills, mass timber, or new fire resistant technologies, the innovation question keeps resurfacing, How do we build safer?

Canada’s Wildfires May Be the Next Lumber Problem Offsite Factories Cannot Ignore

For years, lumber pricing has been one of those things that factory owners learned to live with. It went up, it came down, somebody blamed housing starts, somebody else blamed the weather, and the purchasing department spent a few more hours on the phone trying to get enough material to keep the line moving.

But Canada’s wildfires are beginning to look like something more than another summer headline with pictures of orange skies and firefighters standing in front of walls of flame.

The question every factory owner, builder, and developer should be asking is not whether the fires will cause a lumber shortage tomorrow morning. The bigger question is whether the wood supply system we have all depended on is becoming less dependable for the next year and a half.

I think the answer is yes.