Good morning and thank you for joining us today for Hovnanian Enterprises fiscal 2010 fourth quarter and year-end earnings conference call. An archive of the webcast will be available after the completion of the call and run for 12 months. [Operator Instructions.] Management will make some opening remarks about the fourth quarter and year-end results and then open up the line for questions. The company will also be webcasting a slide presentation along with the opening comments from management. The slides are available on the Investors page at the company's website at www.khov.com. Those listeners who would like to follow along should log onto the website at this time. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone that the cautionary language about forward-looking statements contained in the press release also applies to any comments made during this conference call and to the information in the slide presentation. I would now like to turn over the conference call over to Ara Hovnanian, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Hovnanian Enterprises. Ara, please go ahead.

Good morning and thank you for participating in today's call to review the results of our fourth quarter and fiscal year ended October 2010. Joining me today from the company are Larry Sorsby, Executive Vice President and CFO; Paul Buchanan, Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; Brad O'Connor, Vice President and Corporate Controller; David Valiaveedan, Vice President, Finance and Treasurer; and Jeff O'Keefe, Director of Investor Relations. On slide 3, you can see a brief summary of our full-year results, which were in line with our expectations but still obviously far from where we'd like to be. The year can generally be described as one where we and the industry were bouncing along the bottom. Slide 4 shows that we saw improving trends from November '09 at the beginning of our fiscal year through April of 2010, and then sales dropped off significantly in May and June after the expiration of the tax credit. The market gradually improved from July through September, but was still below the levels we saw a year ago. In October, sales per community improved again, finally matching the same levels as the prior year. However, sales pace slowed more than expected in November and fell back below last year again. You can see this in our monthly data, which we show on slide 5. When you look at the change in the absolute level of monthly net contracts this year, compared to last year, as we do on slide 6, you can see that the gap narrowed every month from June through September, which reflects the market beginning to rebound after the expiration of the tax credit. In October, we signed more contracts this year than we did in October of '09, helped by a slightly higher community count. However, in November we experienced…

Thanks Ara. Let me start with a discussion of our current inventory from a couple of different perspectives. Turning to slide 14, you'll see our owned and optioned land positions broken out by our publicly reported segments. Based on trailing 12-month deliveries, we own 3.7 years' worth of land. Both our owned lot position and our optioned lot position decreased slightly on a sequential basis in the fourth quarter. We purchased approximately 1200 lots during the fourth quarter, which was offset by about the same number of deliveries and the sale of about 100 lots. On the optioned side of the equation, at virtually no cost we walked away from 1000 options on newly identified land, most of which are still in the initial due diligence period. We walked away from 700 legacy lots at a cost of about $12 million. Additionally, we bought about 1200 lots previously optioned. Our option contract on about 800 lots was nullified due to lending institutions taking those lots back from a land developer that went into bankruptcy. We signed new option contracts for an additional 2900 lots during the quarter. At the end of the fourth quarter, 60% of our optioned lots were newly identified lots. When you combine our optioned and owned land, 39% of the total lots that we control today are newly identified lots that we underwrote to a 25% plus unleveraged IRR. We contracted roughly half of those newly identified lots after the market slowed through the expiration of the tax credit in April this year. On slide 15, we show a breakdown of the 17,676 lots we owned at the end of the fourth quarter. Approximately 37% of these were 80% or more finished, 11% had 30-80% of the improvements already in place, and the remaining 52% have…

The company will now answer questions. So that everybody has an opportunity to ask questions, participants will be limited to one question and a follow up, after which they will have to get back into the queue to ask another question. [Operator Instructions.] And your first question comes from the line of Nishu Sood of Deutsche Bank. Please proceed. Nishu Sood – Deutsche Bank: I wanted to ask first about the sales trends that you described in November. Your fourth quarter numbers, the numbers through October, were definitely stronger, I think, than most folks were expecting, stronger than your peers, and obviously showing the upward trend, whereas most people were describing it as flat. So I wanted to get some sense of what the drivers may have been in November. Was it mortgage rates perhaps, or was there some promotional activity in October that may have pulled sales from the November month? Or was it a return to the kind of level of demand that many of your peers are seeing?

Well, we didn't really have any special promotions. We certainly had no national campaign. There's always one division or another that will be running some kind of promotion or concession opportunity. Frankly, we saw the improvements beginning in July, August, September. We initially assumed everybody was feeling this. We were kind of surprised that it wasn't, because we didn't do any extraordinary or special activity to make that happen, and by October, as we mentioned, per community we matched last year. It kind of got back to, finally, where we were. In total we did a little better. But just as I couldn't quite explain that recovery, which kind of felt like we finally got through that post-tax credit malaise. I really can't explain why November dipped down. Again, we didn't do that much differently. Keep in mind November for all practical purposes is typically a half-month, because once you start approaching Thanksgiving everybody's focus goes elsewhere. So we're anxious, as everyone is, to see how the market returns when it gets back to normal late January early February. Nishu Sood – Deutsche Bank: And so specifically, on mortgage rates, were you hearing anything from the field which leads you to believe that that may have been part of the impact?

No, I don't think so. I think clearly rates were extremely low. We did see them increase a bit recently, but I don't think that caused a surge of buying activity when they were very low nor do I think it's the reason that sales slowed a bit in November.

Yeah, on the whole, mortgage rates are very, very affordable. Frankly I think more of the issue is where consumer sentiment and confidence and outlook for the economy is at the moment than any particular promotion or the rates. Nishu Sood – Deutsche Bank: And a followup question on the joint ventures. The GTIS joint venture, clearly some successful execution here of something you've been talking about for some time. I wanted to get a sense of how you view the principal purpose of the JVs. Is it to get access to opportunities that you wouldn't maybe for size reasons be able to otherwise? Is it to leverage the returns a little bit more?

It's a little bit of both. Obviously we have a finite amount of capital and we need to maximize what we can do with that capital. It's plenty for the finished lot takedowns and we could pretty much do those on an unlimited basis. It's plenty for smaller communities that we are getting in and out of. However, it would be a concentration of our capital if we did the larger transactions wholly on balance sheet, using our own cash. There are parts of California, parts of DC, parts of the New Jersey market that take larger amounts of capital, and there are larger opportunities in some cases in terms of the number of lots. We don't want to miss them, nor do we want to tie up our capital there in spite of the fact that they generate very good returns. So we see combining with a joint venture partner as the most efficient way to maximize our capital. The added benefit, and frankly I could make a case we should do everything with joint ventures, just from the pure return standpoint, is we really leverage our returns because of the promote structure. If we hit pro formas - and our pro formas don't assume any price appreciation - we do significantly better on our returns on capital than we do on most5 wholly owned communities. We can, frankly, if we put up 25% of investment, we can make 50% of the profit. If we put up 20%, we can make 40% of the profit just from hitting pro forma. And then, if there is a recovery, and we're not banking on it, but if there is, we get an even higher percentage. So I think it's a very efficient use of capital all the way around. This is our second joint venture with GTIS. They've been great partners and we think it's a win-win all around.

And your next question comes from the line of Carl Reichardt with Wells Fargo Securities. Please proceed. Carl Reichardt – Wells Fargo Securities: I had a question about the land that you've looked at on the finished lot side that you thought was too expensive to take down now. Could you give me a sense as to how overpriced you view these lots? Is it 10%, 40%? What seems to be the disconnect between the seller and what you guys will pay?

Are you talking about the lots that we walked away from? Carl Reichardt – Wells Fargo Securities: Not that you walked away from, but deals that you've been looking at where you just thought - you mentioned you thought finished lot prices in some cases were too high relative to you being able to hit 25% unlevered IRR. I'm just trying to figure out how high.

I'm not sure we actually made that comment, but we certainly - I mean what I said was our new transactions we clearly are comfortable where even at this moment's underwriting - and the bulk of our new transactions have been in the last two quarters - we feel very comfortable they're going to hit or exceed the high 25% IRRs. But we certainly do see transactions - finished lot takedowns in particular operate with a lower margin but a higher inventory turnover to get the returns. So they don't quite have as much room on the margin side, and you really have to underwrite them properly. There tends to be a little bit more wiggle room if you will on the larger properties or the ones where we develop them or larger land positions because they have more margin and lower turns. So you can accept a little lower margin and still do okay. But not so on the finished lot takedowns. Carl Reichardt – Wells Fargo Securities: Okay. And then in terms of the deals that you have done recently that you expect your IRR hurdles with constant price and constant pace from now, what kind of cost of goods increases or lack thereof are you assuming in those numbers? What's your sense as to the direction that hard costs will go - labor and materials?

We've always used an assumption of no home price appreciation and no changes in cost, either the labor side or the brick side of the equation. Our feeling always has been if we see increases hopefully we'll be able to increase home prices to offset it. There has been fluctuation in commodity prices over time. As demand increases for homes in the future, whenever that ends up occurring, I think it's a safe bet that you'll begin to see material and labor costs start to inch up as well and hopefully at that time we'll be able to increase prices to offset it.

I will say we continue to have price reductions on the labor side throughout a variety of locations around the country. Commodities we have less control over, obviously, but we continue to have successes on the labor side.

Your next question comes from the line of Jonathan Ellis with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please proceed. Jonathan Ellis – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: My first question is, if we just look at the lots purchased this quarter and the price point, it looks like the average price per lot has come up somewhat materially from prior quarters. I just want to get a sense - is that a function of geographic mix? I know you talked a little bit about more difficulty in getting access to finished lots at reasonable prices. Is that reflected in the average price point this quarter? Any compare and contrast to average price per lot in prior quarters?

It's highly, highly dependent on the geographic mix. Lots similar to what we have in our joint venture that are purchased in good markets in California, north or south, Washington, the finished lot cost can be double or triple, or four times, what we pay in North Carolina or Chicago or Houston. So it just depends on in a given period what the geographic mix is. The other thing is it depends on whether they're finished lots, closing at a quarter, or raw lots. We have been buying some raw lots and obviously those are at a much lower price per lot than the finished lot.

Having said all that, which is 100% accurate, we didn't provide any data this quarter that I'm aware of that you can ascertain what we paid for those lots. The $100 million is a combination of what we paid for land as well as what we spent on land development of parcels, not necessarily the parcels that we just bought. So if that's how you're coming to the conclusion of one price being higher than the other, I don't think you can draw that conclusion from that data. Jonathan Ellis – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: Has this mix in development changed much from prior quarters?

I think it's starting to increase, but I just don't think you can draw any conclusions from that data.

In general, early on, more throughout '09, a lot of our opportunities, probably 90%, were for developed lot opportunities. Now there is definitely a mix of more undeveloped lots. We're still getting developed lot opportunities, but there's a greater mix of undeveloped lots. Fortunately there are plenty of small packages of lots - 35 lots, 50 lots, etc. So even though we have to spend the dollars to develop them, the asset still turns relatively quickly. 18 months and we're in and out and liquefy the investment in those cases. And once again, the larger ones where that's not the case we're orienting toward joint ventures and they have great returns but more capital, more life, and they don't turn as quickly.

And one last point on this is that the land development spend that we discussed is not necessarily on lots that we first controlled this quarter. We might have controlled them one quarter ago, two quarters ago, three quarters ago and are just now doing the development on it as well. So again, I'm not sure I answered your question fully, but I just don't think you can use the data we provided to draw any conclusions on lot prices. Jonathan Ellis – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: Okay. Second question, just the cash position you're targeting, $275 million, and a minimum level of $200 million, does that include the restricted cash portion, or is that just the unrestricted?

It includes the restricted cash. In general, keep in mind that the restricted cash has been shrinking as we build out more legacy communities. It's possible that at some point would reverse, but generally speaking we haven't had to tie up nearly as much in restricted cash in the new transactions compared to our older ones which were burning down. Jonathan Ellis – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: Right. That makes sense. The related question there is you mentioned potential valuation of capital markets transactions. Have you changed your view on equity issuance? I think you had said previously that you would not consider equity issuance until you were profitable after interest expense. Is that still the case, or are you reevaluating that?

You know, in general we still remain comfortable with our capital position and cash position. I know some can get concerned. Obviously we can control the governor by controlling the kinds of lots that we purchase and the amount of lots that we purchase in any given quarter, so the cash is largely in our control. Having said that, we are seeing some very good opportunities in the marketplace, so I'd say we're a little bit more open to even considering equity in the near future. It really just depends on the combination of the opportunities that we see and the capital that we need to take advantage of them. But we're a little more open on the equity side than we have been.

And your next question comes from the line of Michael Rehaut of JP Morgan. Please proceed.

First question on the drill back on the November slowdown. Granted, it's one month and this is kind of a slower, more erratic time, and I think also to a previous caller's point, maybe some other builders haven't seen as much of an improvement going into November, perhaps more stability. But in either case, I was wondering if in that slowdown if that was led by any one or two regions or markets more than others, and you said it didn't really have anything to do with higher interest rates, which is consistent with our view. But any other type of financing drivers that you see out there that may be helping or hurting demand at this point on a marginal basis?

You know, what it kind of felt like is the holidays came a couple of weeks early. Usually the slowdown is the second half of the month of November as we're approaching Thanksgiving and the holidays, and for whatever reason it was broad-based really across the country. No particular drivers from any kind of incentives concession or anything like that that we could tell and it just seemed like people took a breather earlier this year for the holidays than they normally would have.

So not really tied to any one region per se?

No, very broad.

Pretty even overall.

Okay. Also, going into the spring selling season, are you comfortable with spec levels? Obviously it was down a little bit from 3Q end but do you need to trim anywhere? Is that something where on the margin pricing or incentives or discounts maybe increase to make any adjustments?

I think we're comfortable with our spec strategy. It's really not finished unsold. These are started unsold. We really manage it on a community basis. Obviously there's a few more when you have a multi-family community than you have on a single family detached, but I wouldn't expect to see any significant variations in our average per-community started unsold numbers.

Last one, if I could, on the comments around your cash position. Getting to that $275 [million] level, is that something that you anticipate that you should get there by the end of fiscal '11 or something that might happen even sooner?

I'd say we'd like to get there sooner if we can. I'm just not certain we'll find enough of the opportunities to invest it that quickly. I'd like to get there before the end of the year. I'm just not certain we can find enough opportunities that quickly.

Your next question comes from the line of Joel Locker with FBN Securities. Please proceed. Joel Locker – FBN Securities: I was looking at December and the orders, just the way they're trending right now, do you think they would get to the 1.3 sales a month that they got to in November? It might even be lower.

We've not put any data out about December, but as you look at the slide that we showed you on slide 5 you can see what it was in '08 and '09. It typically falls from November is a typical pattern. In '08 it was 1.1 and December of '09 it was 1.4. But we've not made any comments on December. Joel Locker – FBN Securities: Right. And the gross margin backlog, I know you touched on the gross margin overall, but are they about the same as recorded in the fourth quarter, or are they a little higher or a little lower?

I think from your seat the only thing you can assume is that what we recently closed is what the backlog is.

Yeah, we're not projecting a huge change in the first half of the year. We think the real benefit of our gross margin improvement comes toward the end of the year, third or fourth quarter.

Your next question comes from the line of David Goldberg with UBS. Please proceed. David Goldberg – UBS: First question is on the JVs. I want to maybe follow up on Nishu's question. He asked about some of the motivation for doing the joint ventures, and I wanted to ask about an ancillary benefit, that being maybe accelerating tax benefits by realizing losses up front and then presumably booking income from the joint venture if it's profitable.

Well, just to be clear, we sold them at about cost basis. There was no loss up front, so that's not a motivator. David Goldberg – UBS: But I assume it was an impaired cost basis, right?

No, these were newly identified land parcels that we recently purchased that were transferred to the joint venture at cost basis, so there was nothing involved with taxes there. David Goldberg – UBS: Understood. And along that line, I know you guys identified that there would be some $40 million returned to you after the deal is closed in exchange for this land, but I'm just wondering about the cash flow dynamics out of the joint ventures. As you look forward, does it differ, earning stream versus cash flow stream in the JV at all? Is there any kind of waterfall or any [inaudible] or anything or special payment to the JV partner that would come first, or is it all pretty pro rata based on your equity ownership and kind of a normal GAAP accounting?

Always the promote really comes toward the tail end. Cash flow, the meaningful one for us, in all of our joint ventures, really happens at the end. David Goldberg – UBS: Okay. And then if I could sneak one more in here, I just wanted to get some perspective. I think it's interesting, and I think all the builders are doing this, opening new communities to try to drive some higher volumes, and I'm wondering how you think about cannibalizing sales in currently open neighborhoods and avoiding doing that. Clearly if you're selling two homes per community or 1.5 homes per community per month, that's well below an optimal level. How do you look at the tradeoff between trying to drive some more sales in your existing communities versus increasing the community count? And I guess with that are the sales between, I would assume in the newer communities higher than in the older communities?

First part, we almost always are not cannibalizing. It's either in a very different geography or submarket, or it's a different product line. In one we may be building 2000 square foot homes on a 50 x 100 foot lot. And we may open up or find a new opportunity in an 80 foot lot and where there our average square footage target may be 3000 square feet. In some cases it's an age targeted community versus a non-age targeted. In some it's a townhouse community versus the existing community which would be a single family. So it's very rare where there would be overlap in the community and it's a net-net if not a benefit to us. Plus we can often get a variety of small efficiencies from having additional communities in the area. David Goldberg – UBS: Got it. And then is the sales base a little bit higher in the new communities presumably, or it just depends on product?

You know, it depends on product and geography. In Texas you tend to have slower sales paces, even on successful communities. They just operate at a lower absorption per year. Then you go to a place in DC or in Northern California, same returns but they'll do it on double the sales pace. So it just depends. In general I'd say one of the benefits in the market - I mean the overall market has dropped off significantly. The for sale housing sector is probably down from over 2 million housing sales to about 300,000. On the other hand, the sales per community as bad as they are, they're not nearly that bad. And the reason is because there are just far fewer communities overall and far fewer builders and competitors out there. And that's helping. Certainly the publics have been around and strong, but many of the private builders either are gone or have far, far fewer communities open than they used to and are buying less.

Your next question comes from the line of Alan Rattner with Zelman & Associates. Please proceed. Alan Rattner - Zelman & Associates: Larry, I was hoping to kind of push you a little bit on some of the cash flow numbers you gave, and I just wanted to kind of run a few things by you here. Looking at your cash flow over the past two years if you kind of throw out the tax refunds for a second you've been pretty consistent at about a $200 million cash burn per year. And I know, Ara, I think you made a comment that you kind of control the drivers there on the cash balance, but when you think about the big outflows, you have $150 million plus that you're spending on interest plus $200 million at least on SG&A there. So as I look into your 2011, your backlog's down 30%. Chances are you're not going to get the gross margin benefit until the back half of the year like you indicated. So is that $200 million cash burn number a good number to operate on and could it be even greater than that assuming you continue developing at a higher pace and moving through some of these raw parcels that you've recently put under contract?

We just haven't made a projection beyond what we're going to manage cash to. We've not provided any data to the market on what we expect cash flow to be in the future, so I can't really give you any specific guidance beyond what we've already said.

Suffice it to say we anticipate we're going to be growing community count and we've already established some targets on cash so we're again very comfortable with our cash position. Keep in mind our older positions were typically more capital intensive. We're farming some cash from those. Many of our newer positions, other than the ones we're putting into joint ventures, are far less cash-intensive and have much greater [returns]. So that could benefit us. It allows us to do more without some of the same cash burn. Alan Rattner - Zelman & Associates: Okay, and then I guess just in terms of managing the cash, I think you did mention that you're selling those projects in Jersey and I think getting about $44 million and then you're getting the cash inflow from the joint ventures. Should we expect any additional bulk land sales or any other types of asset sales in order to manage that cash balance above the $275 [million] or do you think those two items alone are enough to keep you there looking over the next two quarters?

We haven't made a projection on any others. If we decide to do others, we'll certainly let you know. Right now I'll just tell you we don't have anything imminently in mind in that regard. Alan Rattner - Zelman & Associates: And then just one last one in terms of your comments about the equity markets. Have you done any work internally with your accountants as far as what type of stock sale or capital infusion might trigger a change of control on the DTA and any type of guidance you can give us there about that?

We were kind of the first ones to adopt some of the devices to minimize the likelihood of ever triggering a change in control. We perceive that the tax asset valuation allowance as one of our largest and best assets so we're not going to take any action that would put that in jeopardy and we have significant room such that we have lots of flexibility before even getting close to doing something that would put it in jeopardy. Alan Rattner - Zelman & Associates: So how much stock could you sell without triggering -

I'm not going to give a specific number. Just suffice it to say that we have lots of room and we have not contemplated a specific transaction even at this point. But we monitor it all the time. We do the calcs on an ongoing basis, and we have significant room. And we adopted that particular pill almost two years ago now. You have a three-year look back, so anything that we had prior to that goes away during this year. So that should give you a hint in and of itself.

And your next question comes from the line of Susan Berliner with JP Morgan. Please proceed. Susan Berliner – JP Morgan: Just a couple questions on land. I just wanted to make sure I was comparing apples and apples. If you go back the past few quarters it seems from the slides that you guys have spent more acquiring land and I think the numbers you've given us in the past were about $70 million and this quarter obviously $100 million. But I wanted to make sure I was comparing acquisition of land as well as development to prior quarters. If you could just -

There's an apple and an orange. In prior quarters I believe we've given you just land. This quarter we gave you land and land development. Susan Berliner – JP Morgan: So if we go back to the prior few quarters did you increase your land spend this quarter or is it roughly the same as the past few quarters if you include both?

Well let me do it the other way, because I'm not sure we have the information for land development in all the other quarters. The best way to answer this would be that probably just the raw land spend is similar to what we did in prior quarters. Susan Berliner – JP Morgan: Okay. And I was just wondering if you could give us - I know you kind of mentioned that the land you were acquiring were matching the recent patterns in sales. Can you just talk about the competitive environment and kind of the pricing on land deals? Any color there would be really helpful.

Sure. Well, we basically do residual pricing on land. We know where the market is in terms of price and pace. We know our costs. We know the returns we want to make and are required to make on any new land acquisitions. So whatever's left over is what we can afford to pay for land. That's obviously very different depending on if it's all cash. It's obviously very different if it's a finished lot takedown and so forth to get to the returns. We in general have continued to see opportunities that [parcel] in this environment. I don't think there has been in recent periods price appreciation in land, but it really just depends on the specific market and opportunity. We continue to find pieces that parcel. I think that's the key takeaway, even in this competitive environment. The builders are not being overly aggressive to buy and the banks have not been overly aggressive to dispose, so there's been an environment that's working right now.

[Operator Instructions.] Your next question is a followup from the line of Michael Rehaut with JP Morgan. Please proceed.

Just a couple of more smaller detail questions. Just first, just for comparison's sake, just wanted to make sure - I believe you said this last conference call as well, but you're expecting over 40% of your deliveries in 2011 to come from new communities. For fiscal '10 do you still expect it to be in the 5-10% range?

For fiscal '10, for new deliveries, I believe we quoted 12% roughly, so a significant change.

So 12% going to over 40% in '11. Second, on the mortgage put-back information, very much appreciated there. Obviously it's something that's been discussed a lot in the last few months. I guess the question is more, you know, we see that the amount that you've expensed over the last few years has been pretty minimal. But over the last 12 months has the request of put-backs or make-whole requests increased on a month to month basis, or could you describe the level of activity there as we've gone throughout the last six months?

I'd say the last six months if anything maybe it's slowed. That may be more of a reflection that the institutions are more focused on the robosigning and foreclosure problem issues than they are on these repurchase requests. So I'm not sure what, if anything, to draw from it. We continue to get some flow in. Certainly it's not escalating. So I'd say steady to maybe slightly down, but I'm not sure I'd read much into it one way or the other.

One more if I could. Just on a regional basis, you know, with all the land activity that you're doing and you expect to continue to do. Maybe if you could give us a sense as you look across the country, where at this point do you feel there are greater opportunities or areas where you'd be a lot more confident investing in as you look at those markets and the sales pace and price trends that they're demonstrating right now?

We feel, obviously, good about all the locations where we're buying. I'd say we're finding fewer opportunities in the New Jersey market, only because there just doesn't seem to be as much distressed there that we can buy at a sufficiently low price. And we're not finding as many opportunities in the Minneapolis market. The sales pace has been generally slow, so it's hard to find that combination of pace and price. Ohio had been dry for us in new opportunities, but we just found a couple of transactions that made sense, one on a finished lot basis, one all cash. But frankly, in Ohio, the lot costs are so low it's almost the capital equivalent of a quarterly lot takedown. But we feel very good. In general, certainly, we're very bullish on DC. The northern Virginia market has about a 4.7% unemployment rate so we feel great about that market, not as much distressed land but there are opportunities there nonetheless. And in northern and southern California, I'd say we are seeing the opportunities that are more coastally oriented than further inland. Not as many opportunities in the Sacramento side, certainly not as many in the Stockton-Modesto side. But much more the Bay Area and in Southern California seeing more opportunities closer to the coast than way out in the Inland Empire where it's tougher to make numbers work.

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the question and answer session. I would now like to turn over the conference call to Ara Hovnanian for closing remarks.