fred crowley\'s quarterly report
Post on 01-Nov-2014
685 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 1
TM
Quarterly Updates and Estimates Volume 7, Number 4, April 2009
Fred Crowley - Senior Economist
Update on the El Paso County Economy
The Business Conditions Index (BCI) appears to have halted its downward trend. The BCI now stands at 69.48, up from its February value of 68.62. The nominal improvement in the BCI and its steady performance since November 2008 suggest that the local economy is likely at the bottom of the current recession. The most important measure of the area’s economic health might be employment. Since employment tends to lag the business cycle, the Forum expects several months of slow economic activity are ahead for the local economy. While some nominal variations around the emerging trend are expected, the Forum does not expect the
1 The Business Conditions Index (BCI) is a geometric index of ten seasonally adjusted data series. The El Paso County data are single family and town home permits, new car sales, employment rate, foreclosures, ES202 employment and ES202 wages and salaries. Colorado Springs data are sales and use tax collections and airport enplanements. University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment and the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Manufacturing Index are non-local indicator in the BCI. The BCI is in-dexed to March 2001 = 100. All raw series are seasonally adjusted by UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum using the De-
partment of Commerce X12 adjustment process.
Business Conditions Index
El Paso County (March 2001 = 100)
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-05 Sep-05 Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09
Forum
Business
Conditio
ns In
dex
Business Conditions Index 3 Month Moving Average
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 2
TM
economy will deteriorate beyond its current position. The economy should experience a boost from the troops who returned in February and the Fort Hood troops scheduled for reassignment to Fort Carson in this summer. See the January 2009 QUE for a discussion of the military’s impact on the local economy. http://www.southerncoloradoeconomicforum.com/ The current quarter saw all BCI indicators below their respective year ago values. However, five of the ten indicators are now higher than their previous monthly values. This compares favorably with two of the ten indicators being higher than their respective December 2008 values.
COS
Enplane-
ments
El Paso
County
SF & TH
Permits
U Of
Mich Con
Sent
Kansas
City Fed
Mfg Index
El Paso
Employ-
ment Rate
Colorado
Springs
2% Sales
& Use
Tax
El Paso
County
Car
Sales
El Paso
County
Fore-
closures
El Paso
County
Employed
El Paso
County
Real
Wages BCI
Dec-07 86.56 31.12 82.31 136.40 98.50 107.58 80.40 98.30 111.41 103.77 88.44
Jan-08 93.20 35.03 81.01 150.22 98.36 107.79 88.31 98.60 112.85 103.83 91.90
Feb-08 93.12 30.85 77.06 139.76 98.30 99.40 79.50 97.85 112.97 104.42 87.96
Mar-08 90.14 28.74 75.77 138.27 97.97 104.12 71.12 97.98 113.08 104.84 86.29
Apr-08 87.24 28.47 68.75 149.48 98.09 101.79 79.27 98.05 112.65 99.33 86.01
May-08 93.34 36.69 65.54 152.09 97.82 101.78 68.99 98.42 111.47 99.10 87.23
Jun-08 85.60 23.83 60.49 147.61 97.83 110.33 76.78 97.59 109.16 98.12 83.14
Jul-08 81.95 30.58 66.09 169.28 97.68 93.81 66.95 98.13 108.40 98.57 84.26
Aug-08 84.91 20.03 68.98 146.49 97.50 103.75 63.70 98.99 108.27 98.33 80.67
Sep-08 80.47 28.26 78.38 125.56 97.42 99.18 67.74 98.94 108.36 98.03 82.93
Oct-08 86.28 17.50 65.90 99.03 96.95 93.25 58.48 97.92 108.16 103.60 75.11
Nov-08 79.98 17.29 61.41 75.11 96.99 94.39 54.37 98.21 108.47 103.31 71.51
Dec-08 79.57 16.87 66.14 76.98 96.34 91.51 57.76 98.26 107.59 101.94 72.01
Jan-09 79.02 17.92 65.64 62.78 95.86 89.24 48.83 98.17 107.00 100.35 69.34
Feb-09 78.56 17.71 61.71 59.79 95.24 90.86 49.96 97.78 106.68 99.92 68.62
Mar-09 77.37 17.50 62.31 64.65 94.99 98.11 50.07 97.94 106.14 99.10 69.48
Feb-09 -1.51% -1.19% 0.97% 8.12% -0.25% 7.99% 0.22% 0.16% -0.51% -0.82% 1.26%
Dec-08 -2.77% 3.75% -5.79% -16.02% -1.40% 7.22% -13.33% -0.32% -1.35% -2.79% -3.52%
Sep-08 -3.85% -38.06% -20.51% -48.51% -2.49% -1.07% -26.09% -1.01% -2.05% 1.09% -16.22%
Mar-08 -14.17% -39.11% -17.77% -53.24% -3.04% -5.77% -29.61% -0.04% -6.14% -5.47% -19.48%
March 2009 Compared to:
Table 1: Business Conditions Index Components - All Values Indexed to Mar 2001 = 100
Real wages in El Paso County are estimated by the Forum for the period Oct '08 through Mar '09
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 3
TM
Single Family Permit Trends
in El Paso County
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mar-04 Mar-05 Mar-06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Mar-09
Perm
its
Issu
ed
Seasonally Adjusted Single Family Permits 3 Mo Moving Avg SA
Source: Pikes Peak Rgl Bldg Dept, and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Single Family-Detached
Building Permits in El Paso County
389
392
351
344
305
317
245
215
218
188 220
221
273
136
134
180
97 108
78 9
7
69
55
43 6
6
53 7
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Monthly Average: 3/05-3/08 Last 13 Months: 3/08-3/09
Source: Pikes Peak Rgl Bldg Dept, and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Single Family-Townhomes
Building Permits in El Paso County
89
113
82
55
48 52
48
45
41
41
38
47
59
32 3
7
29
28
49
25
20
8 8
17
4
24 28
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Monthly Average: 3/05-3/08 Last 13 Months: 3/08-3/09
Source: Pikes Peak Rgl Bldg Dept, and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Analysis of the El Paso County
Residential Housing Market
The Forum noted the near bottoming of single family permit activity in the 4th quarter of 2008. Evidence since then sup-ports the earlier observation. Permit activ-ity is flat to slightly up. Measurable growth is likely to elude us until late in 2009.
Permit activity remains significantly be-low its past average.
Weakness in townhome permit activity continues to characterize this less expen-sive form of home ownership in the county. Townhome permit activity is well below its past average.
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 4
TM
Single Family & Townhomes
Building Permits in El Paso County
478 505
433
399
353
369
293
260
258
229 258
268
331
168
171 209
125 157
103
117
77
63
60 70 77 99
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Monthly Average: 3/05-3/08 Last 13 Months: 3/08-3/09
Source: Pikes Peak Rgl Bldg Dept, and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Compared to the last several years, the most recent thirteen months of private residential building activity have remained weak. The normal rise in activity in the late spring to early summer appears to be present in 2009. A modest non-seasonally adjusted upturn can be seen in the accom-panying chart. While offering a glimmer of hope, it is not sufficient to conclude the local housing market is better.
Compared to their past year to date levels, cumulative single family permits continue to be well below their past average. This is expected to improve toward the latter part of 2009.
Multi-family permit activity finished 2008 with several large projects. Permit activ-ity was up 17.4 percent over its past an-nual average. Vacancy rates in the 10 per-cent range and declining real rents suggest no additional multi-family housing is needed at the current time except for se-lect pockets in the areas surrounding Fort Carson.
Single Family Detached Permits
in El Paso County - Year to Date Comparison
2,2
68
220 4
41
714
974
1,2
30
1,4
40
1,6
19
1,8
02
1,9
47
2,0
70
2,1
77
2,2
68
1,2
23
66 119
190
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average Cumulative Permits: 2006 - 2008 Actual Permits: 2009
Source: Pikes Peak Rgl Bldg Dept, and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Multi-Family Housing Units
in El Paso County - Year to Date Comparison
386
21 40 7
1 93 109
166
284 3
28
340 358
365 386
453
12 16
17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average Cumulative Permits: 2006 - 2008 Actual Permits: 2009
Source: Pikes Peak Rgl Bldg Dept, and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 5
TM
Active Listings of Homes
(Pikes Peak Region)
4,6
63
4,9
57
5,3
60
5,6
42
5,8
29
5,8
56
5,7
10
5,5
20
5,1
85
4,7
22
4,8
49
4,9
81
5,3
31
5,8
49
6,1
75
6,3
96
6,5
95
6,5
44
6,3
23
6,0
30
5,8
41
5,5
47
4,9
51
4,9
25
4,9
96
5,0
79
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Mar-
08
Apr-
08
May-
08
Jun-
08
Jul-
08
Aug-
08
Sep-
08
Oct-
08
Nov-
08
Dec-
08
Jan-
09
Feb-
09
Mar-
09
Act
ive
Lis
tings
Historical Average: 3/05-3/08 Last 13 Months: 3/08-3/09
Source: Pikes Peak REALTOR Services Corp. and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Monthly Single Family Home Sales
(Pikes Peak Region)
977
1,0
22 1,1
72
1,2
88
1,1
91
1,1
72
938
917
805
787
628
658
883
722
772 840
867
886
778
734
649
499
495
413 504 566
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Mar-
08
Apr-
08
May-
08
Jun-
08
Jul-
08
Aug-
08
Sep-
08
Oct-
08
Nov-
08
Dec-
08
Jan-
09
Feb-
09
Mar-
09
Sin
gle
Fam
ily H
om
es S
old
Historical Average: 3/05-3/08 Last 13 Months: 3/08-3/09 Series3
Source: Pikes Peak REALTOR Services Corp. and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
MLS Activity Single family home sales in the Pikes Peak Region were down 28.5 percent from the annual average for 2005-2007. Low interest rates are helping refinancing deci-sion but have not contributed to signifi-cant home purchase activity as of yet. This is expected to change with the rising affordability of housing. In 2008, the housing affordability for El Paso County was approximately 134, up from 101 in 2006.
Home sales activity continues to struggle. The latest monthly data indicate sales are running approximately 36 percent below the past average. A number of mortgage lenders have reported increased activity from first time buyers who are eager to take advantage of the stimulus package tax credits.
The supply of single family homes for sale in the Pikes Peak Region is significantly lower than year ago figures (down 13.3% from March 2008’s historical average). March 2009 listings were approximately 8 percent below its historical three year av-erage. If this continues, the decrease in the supply of housing for sale is expected to contribute to price stability among re-sale homes over the next six to nine months.
Year to Date Sales
(Pikes Peak Region)
10,0
75
628 1,2
86
2,1
69
3,0
79 4,1
24 5,2
37 6,2
81
7,2
55
8,0
30
8,7
88
9,4
50
10,0
75
8,3
39
413 917 1,4
83
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Dec-
08
Jan-
09
Feb-
09
Mar-
09
Apr-
09
May-
09
Jun-
09
Jul-
09
Aug-
09
Sep-
09
Oct-
09
Nov-
09
Dec-
09
Hom
es
Sold
Monthly Average: 12/06-12/08 Last 13 Months: 12/08-12/09
Source: Pikes Peak REALTOR Services Corp. and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 6
TM
Average Sale Price of a Home
(Pikes Peak Region)
245,1
40
245,0
49
256,0
57
263,2
26
264,3
67
261,4
53
258,0
80
249,5
90
252,5
02
262,4
62
246,5
20
243,3
46
243,0
09
223,0
25
239,5
78
251,5
43
256,8
29
252,5
49
235,0
98
239,3
85
230,0
12
213,4
66
227,3
76
198,6
44
206,6
08
212,5
49
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Mar-
08
Apr-
08
May-
08
Jun-
08
Jul-
08
Aug-
08
Sep-
08
Oct-
08
Nov-
08
Dec-
08
Jan-
09
Feb-
09
Mar-
09
Aver
age
Pri
ce o
f H
om
es S
old
Historical Average: 3/05-3/08 Last 13 Months: 3/08-3/09
Source: Pikes Peak REALTOR Services Corp. and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Median Sale Price of a Home
(Pikes Peak Region)
204,2
83
203,4
33
214,0
00
220,4
42
221,4
17
218,3
75
211,1
42
208,0
46
210,1
50
217,5
77
204,8
83
205,8
17
204,3
33
193,0
00
207,7
50
210,0
00
223,0
00
223,9
50
199,9
00
200,0
00
189,0
00
187,0
00
180,0
00
173,0
00
177,2
50
185,0
00
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Media
n P
ric
e o
f H
om
es
Sold
Historical Average: 3/05-3/08 Last Thirteen Months: 3/08-3/09
Source: Pikes Peak REALTOR Services Corp. and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Ratio of Home Sales to Housing Units
(Indexed to Mar/Nov 2001 = 100)
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Mar-05 Sep-05 Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09
Home Sales
Source: Pikes Peak REALTOR Services Corp. and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
The average price of an MLS facilitated home sale has trended down by approxi-mately 5 percent since March 2008. This supports the general consensus that the local housing market is soft. The average sales price of homes that were sold is not the same thing as the average price change for homes. A better measure is believed to be the same house resale price change from the Office of Federal Housing Enter-prise Oversight. This measure indicates housing prices declined by 1.8 percent from December 2008 to December 2009.
Median sale prices also fell over the last year. The median price decline approxi-mately 4 percent, slightly better than the 5 percent decline in average prices.
The Forum’s ratio of home sales to total single family housing units continues to demonstrate signs of stability. The index has remained in a steady range since Octo-ber 2008. A notable upward trend is not expected for at least 6 to 9 more months.
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 7
TM
Single Family Permits and Initiated Foreclosure
Proceedings in El Paso County (Seasonally Adjusted)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mar-04 Mar-05 Mar-06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Mar-09
Sin
gle
Fam
ily P
erm
its
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Foreclo
sure P
roceedin
gs
Permits Foreclosures
Source: El Paso County Public Trustee and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Foreclosures
Permits
The Forum first pointed to the inverse re-lation between foreclosures and new sin-gle family permits at its 11th Annual Southern Colorado Economic Forum in October 2007. Evidence of the relation-ship continued through 2008. Until the problem in foreclosures is resolved, single family construction is not expected to re-bound.
El Paso County Foreclosure Proceedings
1,4
06 2
,088
3,2
40
3,4
76
2,9
73
2,3
16
1,9
92
1,0
59
590
456
431
499
664
827
959
1,0
03
1,1
63 1,5
96
1,9
54
2,2
75
2,2
73
2,5
54
3,5
56
4,6
02
4,5
00
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009*
Annual F
ore
closu
res
Source: El Paso County Public Trustee and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Foreclosures The number foreclosures increased sharply in 2008 as subprime and Alt A mortgage loans became more problem-atic. Evidence points to a number of homeowners with second mortgages who are upside down on their mortgages. Ad-ditional concerns exist about the rising number of unemployed workers and their ability to meet mortgage payments. De-spite these concerns, local indicators and the BCI suggest the local economy is on the verge of improvement. Foreclosures are expected to decline slightly in 2009 to 4,500.
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 8
TM
Last 12 Months Q3 2007 to Q3 2008
Last 24 Months Q3 2006 to Q3 2008
Last 60 Months Q3 2003 to Q3 2008
Boulder, CO 2.98% 5.85% 16.00%
Colorado Springs, CO -1.79% -1.54% 15.83%
Denver-Aurora, CO -0.70% -1.08% 6.34%
Fort Collins-Loveland, CO -0.09% 1.29% 8.19%
Grand Junction, CO 0.55% 13.62% 59.93%
Greeley, CO -7.25% -10.16% -6.58%
Pueblo, CO -0.25% -2.04% 10.75%
Colorado -0.15% 1.45% 13.89%
U.S. -4.47% -3.86% 24.79%
Housing Bubbles
The Forum has repeatedly noted that Colorado Springs should not experience a housing bubble. To date, re-sale price trends have declined less than 2 percent over the last 24 months. This is best described as a modest change in housing prices, not a burst bubble. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight produces a housing price based on same house sales data. New homes are excluded from the index until they are resold in the market. Over the past five years, housing
prices in the Colorado Springs MSA saw the third highest appreciation in Colorado. An energy driven bub-ble drove Grand Junction prices up an unsustainable 59.93 percent over the last five years. Current evidence indicates Grand Junction is at the front end of a housing market correction. If not for Boulder’s recent modest gain in value and the slight decline in values in Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs would have had the sec-ond best housing market in Colorado over the last 5 years.
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 9
TM
Multi-family Market The estimated annualized multi-family vacancy rate stood at 9.65 percent for 2008. Continued new construction, the lack of job growth and the sustained de-ployment of troops from Fort Carson con-tributed to this. The Rand institute esti-mated 40 percent of the troops who live off base will rent housing. The antici-pated return of troops and additional troops under BRAC05 are expected to help reduce vacancies in 2009 provided new multi-family construction takes a sab-batical. Higher nominal rents are not expected un-til vacancies drop and inflation increases with a growing economy. Adjusting for inflation, real apartment rents were estimated to be $586 in Decem-ber 2008 compared to $658 in December 2003. Alternatively stated, landlords are collecting 10.9 percent less real revenue per rented apartment than they did five years earlier. The increase in new multi-family units and the modest increases in occupancy rates suggest real rents for multi-family units will remain weak through the next 6 to 9 months.
Nominal and Real
Apartment Rents in El Paso County
500
550
600
650
700
750
Dec-03 Jun-04 Dec-04 Jun-05 Dec-05 Jun-06 Dec-06 Jun-07 Dec-07 Jun-08 Dec-08
Aver
age
Month
ly R
ent
Rent NSA Inflation Adjusted Rent NSA
Source: Colorado Division of Housing, UCCS Forum
Multi-Family Vacancy Rates
in El Paso County
5.58
3.55
5.33
9.33
12.1811.18
11.9311.20
10.109.65
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Source: Colorado Division of Housing, *= Estimated Yearly Rate
Multi-Family Rents
in El Paso County
607
645
669659
664669 674
694 699 698
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
720
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Source: Colorado Division of Housing, *= Estimated Yearly Rate
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 10
TM
Enplanement Trends at Colorado Springs Airport
(Seasonally Adjusted)
60,000
65,000
70,000
75,000
80,000
85,000
90,000
95,000
100,000
Mar-04 Mar-05 Mar-06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Mar-09
Month
ly E
npla
nem
ents
Monthly Airport Enplanements
Source: Colorado Springs Airport, Prepared by UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Enplanements at Colorado Springs Airport vs Recent
Monthly Average (Seasonally Adjusted)
89,0
53
87,1
32
87,2
02
85,7
39
84,0
38
81,3
23
79,6
70
81,0
64
79,4
76
79,1
87
76,8
46
76,3
88
75,6
79
87,1
10
84,3
00
90,1
95
82,7
22
79,1
96
82,0
52
77,7
61
83,3
78
77,2
89
76,8
94
76,3
55
75,9
14
74,7
68
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Mar-08 May-08 Jul-08 Sep-08 Nov-08 Jan-09 Mar-09
Pass
enger E
npla
nem
ents
per M
onth
Monthly Average: 3/05-3/08 Last 13 Months: 3/08-3/09
Source: Colorado Springs Airport, Prepared by UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Colorado Springs Airport Enplanements
Year-to-Date Trends
1,0
16,2
67
72,1
28
141,0
63
224,5
36
303,7
62
395,1
30
492,4
38
593,7
21
692,3
29
775,4
18
861,5
46
940,3
82
1,0
16,2
67
998,3
47
62,3
06
122,3
54
197,4
21
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Average: 12/06-12/08 Actual: 1/09-12/09
Source: Colorado Springs Airport, Prepared by UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Colorado Springs Airport Trends Enplanement activity continued its decline through the first quarter of 2009. This was expected, given the conditions of the economy. Strength is not expected until the economy begins its expected recovery in latter portion of 2009. A comparison of current monthly enplane-ments vs. their historical monthly average reveals the downward trend in enplane-ments has been ongoing for an extended period of time. Reduced numbers of flights, higher fuel/ticket prices last sum-mer and a global recession contributed to enplanement declines. Travel spikes asso-ciated with returning troops are expected in 2009. These are not expected to offset the generally lower trend in enplanements at the airport. The Forum repeats its expectation that monthly enplanements will continue to lag their recent past averages. At the current trend, enplanements in 2009 are expected to be 4 to 5 percent below 2008 levels.
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 11
TM
Colorado Springs
2% Monthly Sales Tax Collections
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Feb-0
4
Jun-0
4
Oct-
04
Feb-0
5
Jun-0
5
Oct-
05
Feb-0
6
Jun-0
6
Oct-
06
Feb-0
7
Jun-0
7
Oct-
07
Feb-0
8
Jun-0
8
Oct-
08
Feb-0
9
($M
illions)
Source : C ity of Colorado Springs and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
City of Colorado Springs: Inflation Adjusted
Per Capita Sales Tax Collection (1998=100)
100.0 111.9
115.4
111.9
110.5
118.9
122.1
126.6
129.1
122.2
100.0
106.0
102.8
97.0
94.5 100.0
98.7
97.5
94.5
83.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Annual C
ollection (000,0
00's
)
Nominal Sales & Use Taxes Per Capita, Real Sales & Use Taxes
Source: City of Colorado Springs and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Colorado Springs Sales Taxes The City of Colorado Springs sales tax collections peaked in 2007. The current decline reflects the recession and the on-going flight to suburbia. In order to see a correction to the tax revenue trend, the City of Colorado Springs needs to host large dollar volume retailers that require population and income densities that are not found in the area’s smaller, satellite communities. These retailers should probably be located along I25 or similar high traffic corridor. Monthly sales tax collection comparisons with the current and average for the same month over the previous three years indi-cate sales tax collections for Colorado Springs have declined steadily throughout 2008 and into 2009. Current conditions indicate the City and County will experi-ence consecutive TABOR ratchet down effects for 2008 and 2009. Per capita, real sales tax collections have been on a downward trend for the City of Colorado Springs for several years. Per capita, real, sales tax collections fell 17 percent for the City from 1999 through 2008. Additional declines are anticipated for 2009.
Sales Tax Collections City of Colorado Springs
8.1
10.4
8.3
9.4
10.5
9.9
9.7 10.1
9.5
9.1
11.5
7.7 8.0
8.0
9.5
8.4 9
.2 9.8
9.5
9.2 9.2
8.3
7.8
10.4
7.0 7.4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
Month
ly C
ollections (0
00,0
00's)
Feb/'07 - Feb/'08 Feb/'08 - Feb/'09
Source: City of Colorado Springs and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 12
TM
New Car Sales Trend in El Paso County
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Mar-04 Mar-05 Mar-06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Mar-09
Sale
s Per
Month
Monthly New Car Sales
Source: El Paso County Clerk and Recorder MSO Report. Prepared by: UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
New Car Sales in El Paso County
Year to Date Trends
21,8
60
2,0
57
3,6
65
5,5
44
7,3
89
9,2
69
11,2
00
13,0
00
15,1
44
17,0
84
18,9
87
20,4
75
21,8
60
19,2
58
1,1
94
2,1
68
3,3
17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Average: 12/06-12/08 Current 13 Months: 12/08-12/09
Source: El Paso County Clerk and Recorder MSO Report. Prepared by: UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
New Car Sales Trends The downward trend in new automobile sales continued through the first quarter of 2009. New car sales in 2008 were ap-proximately 22.4 percent below their sales levels in 2004 and 32 percent below their sales levels in 2001. On a per capita basis, new car sales are doing worse than the absolute decline in car sales. Per capita new car sales have declined approximately 51 percent since March 2004 and 57 percent since March 2001. The Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Chrysler was expected by the Forum. GM will suffer through its own reorganization, either formal or informal. Colorado Springs will see several dealerships close as a result of the reorganizations. This is especially likely if the dealerships brands are siloed by a single domestic manufac-turer.
Monthly, Per Capita
New Vehicle Sales in El Paso County
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-05 Sep-05 Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09
Sale
s per 1
,000 P
eople
Source: El Paso County Clerk and Recorder, CO DOLA and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 13
TM
National Expectations The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia February 2009 Survey of Professional Economists moved toward a more opti-mistic future than their last survey. There is concern about the economy. However, it is tempered with glimmers of light peek-ing through the clouds. The results of the survey indicate the professional econo-mists are optimistic the housing market is on the road to correction. Industrial pro-duction is also expected to rise signifi-cantly from its March 2009 level of 97.4. These upward projections are accompa-nied by increases in interest rates, a reflec-tion of expected rising aggregate demand.
Q1-09 Q2-09 Q3-09 Q4-09 Q1-10
10-Year T-Bond Rate 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.5
3-Month T-Bill Rate 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6
AAA Corp Bond Rate 5.1 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.4
Housing Starts Annualized
Growth Rate %-46.9 1.2 39.1 39.6 39.1
Industrial Production Index 102.7 101.9 101.9 102.6 103.2
Inflation Rate % -2.7 0.8 1.7 1.8 2.0
Real GDP Growth % -5.2 -1.8 1.0 1.8 2.4
Unemployment % 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.0
Nonfarm Payroll Employment
Growth (000's)-548.4 -311.2 -202.1 -43.0 38.7
Nonfarm Payroll Employment
Growth (%)-4.8 -2.8 -1.8 -0.4 0.4
Median Probability of a
Decline in Real GDP99.0% 75.0% 45.0% 25.0% 20.0%
Mean Probability of a Decline
in Real GDP94.4% 74.0% 44.7% 29.9% 21.6%
Annualized Rate for
Recession Likelihood
Employment Growth
Misery Index Trends
(Inflation + Unemployment Rate)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Mar-
99
Mar-
00
Mar-
01
Mar-
02
Mar-
03
Mar-
04
Mar-
05
Mar-
06
Mar-
07
Mar-
08
Mar-
09
Mis
ery I
ndex
Recession Dates Misery IndexSource:
Misery Index: Past 13 Months vs. Respective
Monthly Average of Prior Three Years
7.8
6
8.0
1
7.9
5
7.8
8
8.0
3
7.8
8
7.9
7
7.7
7
7.9
8
8.1
5
8.1
8
8.0
5
8.1
19.0
8
8.9
4
9.6
8 10.5
2
11.3
0
11.7
0
11.0
4
10.1
6
7.7
7
7.2
9
7.6
3
8.3
4
8.1
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Mar-
08
Apr-
08
May-
08
Jun-
08
Jul-
08
Aug-
08
Sep-
08
Oct-
08
Nov-
08
Dec-
08
Jan-
09
Feb-
09
Mar-
09
Mis
ery I
ndex
Monthly Avg of Prior 3 Years Last 13 Months
Source: miseryindex.us and UCCS Southern Colorado Economic Forum
Misery Index The Misery Index, a consumer economic wellness measure, (www.miseryindex.us), defines consumer discon-tent as the sum of the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation. The lower left chart illustrates the his-torical values for the last ten years through March 2009. The rise in the Misery Index beginning in late 2007 identified the current recession correctly. The Misery Index is currently declining due to a decrease in infla-tion. The decline in inflation is attribute to falling energy and commodity prices. The current 8.5 percent na-tional unemployment rate suggests it is too soon to begin feeling good.
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 14
TM
From the Director’s Desk: Reader Feedback
By Tom Zwirlein and David Hollenbach
In the January 2009 issue of the QUE, Fred Crowley performed a hypothetical input-output analysis where a local government entity used an RFP to select a professional services sector (Implan sector 444) vendor to per-form $1,000,000 of work. The choice was between a business domiciled in El Paso County and a vendor lo-cated outside of the region. Selecting the vendor located inside the county kept all of the funds in the county (no leakage) while selection of the outside vendor “exported” 100 percent of the value of the contract out of the region. The results of the simulation showed that 20 local jobs would be lost, over $925,000 of wages went out of the county, local business profits were reduced by $125,000 and indirect business taxes were re-duced $62,000. In sum, a good deal of economic activity was “exported” to another county or region of the country. These are upper end estimates of the economic loss to a community when business is sourced out of the region. I asked David Hollenbach, Managing Partner of DSoft Technology and Senior Vice President of Veteran Engi-neering and Technology, to comment on Fred’s analysis. DSoft Technology is a locally-owned professional information technology services provider and a Forum partner. Here is what he has to say.
“Dr. Fred Crowley’s analysis in the January 2009 QUE, suggested local governments contract-ing with qualified locally-owned businesses, presented a higher value proposition to the tax-payer than the practice of contracting with non-local companies. I couldn’t agree more. The theory is that by contracting with locally-owned firms, opportunities for employment in the re-gion are increased, employing those who buy homes, automobiles, groceries, electronics, etc., and ultimately pay taxes within our community. This in turn increases the tax revenue, giving the taxing authority more resources to use for infrastructure and the public good. Moreover, the profits earned by local firms from these contracts can be plowed back into local banks, churches, the library district, arts, education, charitable organizations, local corporate infrastructure, and also used to create more local area jobs. Anyone who doesn’t know the power of revenue and profit staying local within our community, fails to see the benefits to es-tablished corporate headquarters communities like Cincinnati, Chicago, Redmond, and Austin. When I hear and read the many calls to raise our taxes, to support measures to help our local government, I also know that the local business community would get behind these measures if local government got behind us. Dr. Crowley says that “…for every direct job generated from a million dollars in professional service contracts to local businesses, approximately 1.73 additional jobs would be expected in the local community. None of these would take place if the consulting contract is sent out of the community.” This basic concept has been lost on our local government leaders. Perhaps there’s a feeling that unless we get a firm in from California to assist us with ideas on how to renovate Memorial Park, the ideas we’d get from a local firm are somehow less sophisticated, less sexy. Unless you’ve tried to compete for local contracts, you wouldn’t know there is an unwritten bias against smaller local firms in comparison to the big name agencies in other locales. For instance, the four companies selected for El Paso County’s preferred information technology provider are all headquartered outside El Paso County and some are outside the state. The
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 15
TM
County’s legal counsel is a law firm from Denver. The web site for the Colorado Springs Air-port was developed by a company in Oregon and the wall space for the airport is sold by a mar-keting firm in Pennsylvania! While I’ll be the first to admit we live in a national and interna-tional economy, I disagree that outsourcing projects out of the area is always a good idea – par-ticularly when top-notch expertise lies right here in our own community. My premise is that citizens want the best value from the tax dollars they pay to the government. Local governments should look for the best value in their procurement system. None of us want poor quality companies doing poor quality work for us, even if they are local! But, local governments can make it easier for good locally based companies to win procurements by re-ducing the paperwork, costs and requirements needed to win projects. An outreach to introduce the government to local business would be an easy first step. Eliminating the duplicative, costly proposal volumes and making it easier for local small businesses to compete for work is an-other. Providing a preference for pre-qualified local businesses is just another option. All this for little to no cost, but large potential benefit to the region. I’ve proposed these ideas to several state and local lawmakers. Some recognize this as a win-win for the local taxpayer, but are powerless to make it happen. Some recognize it as a positive program called ABC (Always Buy Colorado) which helped to benefit Colorado-based busi-nesses in the 1980s and 90s. Others claim that this would create an anti-business climate else-where because Colorado Springs-based firms couldn’t compete in other municipalities as they would enact similar legislation to support their local businesses. I guess they’ve never tried to compete in Denver, Chicago, Texas, or Salt Lake City! Isn’t it time that common sense policies be enacted to support locally-owned companies? Keep taxpayer revenue here and promote new jobs, reinvestment in the community, and a stronger community-business climate. My analysis says that it is in the best interest of the community to
use local services whenever possible.” David Hollenbach is a managing partner at DSoft Technology, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner. DSoft Technology is one of only four Microsoft Certified Gold Partners headquar-tered in Colorado Springs and one of fewer than 50 headquartered in Colorado. DSoft Technology has been supporting federal, state and local government, and commercial and ministry clients in the region for 15+ years. DSoft Technology is headquartered in Colo-rado Springs and uses locally-owned services companies and providers whenever possible.
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 16
TM
Save the Date
Thirteenth Annual Southern Colorado Economic Forum
When: October 30, 2009
Where: Antlers Hilton Hotel
Format: Town Hall Q&A on the economy
Time: 7:00AM to Noon
Preliminary Agenda
7:00 Registration
7:30 Opening remarks
7:45 Keynote speaker
8:25 The Colorado Springs economy
9:05 Panelists and Q&A
9:45 Break
10:00 Town Hall Meeting:
The Future of Colorado Springs
and El Paso County
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 17
TM
National Quarterly Data
2008
Q2
2008
Q3
2008
Q4
2009
Q1
Vs Year
Ago
T tl Loans/Lease Charge-off Rate 1.27 1.50 1.89 na 1.14
Loan Delinquency Rate 3.36 3.72 4.59 na 2.15
Benefit Costs SA 2005=100 106.9 107.5 107.9 na 2.10
Compensation Costs SA 2005=100 107.9 108.6 109.1 na 2.60
Retail Sales SA (billions) 1,049 1,021 980 na -92.0
e-Sales SA (billions) 32.5 31.6 37.1 na -1.9
e-Sales as % of Retail Sales SA 3.1% 3.1% 3.8% na 0.1%
GDP Real % Growth (Chained) SA 2.8% -0.5% -3.8% -6.1% -5.9%
Consumer Debt to Disposable Inc 13.8% 13.9% 13.9% na -0.4%
National Monthly Data Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09
Vs Year
Ago
Capacity Utilization SA 79.2 78.9 78.7 78.6 77.6 74.5 75.4 74.5 72.8 71.3 70.3 69.3 -10.50
Car & Lt T rk Sales Millions SA 14.5 14.2 13.6 12.5 13.7 12.5 10.5 10.1 10.3 9.5 9.1 9.8 -5.20
Consumer Sentiment (1966=100) SA 62.6 59.8 56.4 61.2 63.0 70.3 57.6 55.3 60.1 61.2 56.3 57.3 -12.20
CPI-U 1982-84=100 SA 214.0 215.0 217.0 218.6 218.6 218.7 216.9 213.3 211.6 212.2 213.0 212.7 -0.45%
Federal Funds Rate (Effective) 2.28% 1.98% 2.00% 2.01% 2.00% 1.81% 0.97% 0.39% 0.16% 0.15% 0.22% 0.18% -2.43%
Industrial Production (1997=100) SA 111.0 110.7 110.4 110.4 109.2 104.8 106.2 104.8 102.5 100.3 98.8 97.4 -14.27
Inventory/Sales Ratio SA 1.26 1.26 1.25 1.26 1.29 1.31 1.36 1.42 1.45 1.45 1.43 na 0.16
30 Year Convential Mtg Rate NSA 5.92% 6.04% 6.32% 6.43% 6.48% 6.04% 6.20% 6.09% 5.33% 5.06% 5.13% 5.00% -0.97%
Prime Rate (%) NSA 5.24 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.56 4.00 3.61 3.25 3.25 3.25 -2.41
Purch Mgr Index SA 48.60 49.30 49.50 49.50 49.30 43.40 38.70 36.60 32.90 35.60 35.80 36.30 -12.70
Real Rtl/Food Svc Sales SA (billions) 177.94 178.46 176.96 174.55 173.38 170.59 166.12 164.95 161.17 163.69 163.54 161.90 -16.03
S&P500 1,386 1,400 1,280 1,267 1,283 1,165 969 896 903 826 735 798 -524.83
Tech Index SA - Mar 2001 = 100 110.6 113.5 113.5 111.4 110.8 109.2 106.4 108.9 104.3 101.3 104.1 na -6.84
Trade Weighted Dollar 70.5 70.7 71.4 70.9 74.1 75.5 80.4 82.7 80.7 81.0 83.1 83.8 13.52
West Texas Oil Spot Price NSA 112.6 125.4 133.9 133.4 116.6 103.9 76.7 57.4 41.0 41.7 39.2 48.0 -$57.58
Colorado Data Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09
Vs Year
Ago
Denver-Boulder CPI SA - - 208.74 - - - - - 211.07 - - - 2.57%
Kansas City Fed Mfg Index 149.5 152.1 147.6 169.3 146.5 125.6 99.0 75.1 77.0 62.8 59.8 64.6 -73.6
Labor Force NSA (000's) 2,710 2,715 2,752 2,757 2,750 2,746 2,752 2,736 2,732 2,723 2,714 2,706 0.11
Labor Force SA (000's) 2,725 2,726 2,727 2,727 2,731 2,731 2,732 2,733 2,738 2,740 2,742 2,751 28.46
Employment NSA (000's) 2,596 2,593 2,614 2,621 2,614 2,614 2,612 2,588 2,567 2,527 2,508 2,493 -85.44
Employment SA (000's) 2,598 2,598 2,596 2,597 2,597 2,597 2,595 2,593 2,591 2,556 2,535 2,522 -75.25
Unemployment Rate NSA 4.2% 4.5% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8% 5.1% 5.4% 6.0% 7.2% 7.6% 7.9% 3.16%
Unemployment Rate SA 4.7% 4.7% 4.8% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4% 5.8% 6.6% 7.2% 7.5% 2.90%
Colorado Springs Data Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09
Vs Year
Ago
Business Conditions Index SA 86.01 87.23 83.14 84.26 80.67 82.93 75.11 71.51 72.01 69.34 68.62 69.48 -16.80
Co Spgs Airport Boardings SA 84,300 90,195 82,722 79,196 82,052 77,761 83,378 77,289 76,894 76,355 75,914 74,768 -12,342
Foreclosures SA 409 353 477 397 269 276 429 386 379 393 452 428 10
New Car Sales SA 1,832 1,594 1,775 1,547 1,472 1,565 1,351 1,257 1,335 1,129 1,155 1,157 -487
Sales & Use Tax SA (000's) 9,997 9,996 10,835 9,214 10,190 9,740 9,158 9,270 8,987 8,765 8,923 9,636 -590
Single Family Permits SA 135 174 113 145 95 134 83 82 80 85 84 83 -53
Labor Force NSA (000's) 301.4 302.5 305.2 302.9 302.1 301.0 302.3 302.2 300.7 299.3 299.0 297.7 -3.82
Employment NSA (000's) 286.3 286.7 287.2 285.2 284.6 284.0 284.3 283.4 279.7 274.8 273.7 272.1 -12.45
Unemployment Rate NSA 5.0% 5.2% 5.9% 5.9% 5.8% 5.7% 6.0% 6.2% 7.0% 8.2% 8.4% 8.6% 2.97%
Unemployment Rate SA 5.3% 5.6% 5.6% 5.7% 5.9% 6.0% 6.4% 6.4% 7.0% 7.5% 8.1% 8.3% 2.87%
Table 2: Selected Economic Indicators
College of Business and Administration University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
© Southern Colorado Economic Forum - Quarterly Updates and Estimates - April 2009 18
TM
A special thanks to the Forum’s partners for their
continuing financial support.
Platinum Level Colorado Springs Business Journal
First Business Brokers, LTD.
The Gazette
Holland and Hart
Quality Community Group
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
Wells Fargo
Gold Level Colorado Springs Utilities
Fittje Brothers Printing
LaPlata Communities
Silver Level BiggsKofford Certified Public Accountants
Colorado Lending Source
Ent Federal Credit Union
Strategic Financial Partners
Sustaining Level Academy Bank
Adams Bank & Trust
ADD STAFF, Inc.
Air Academy Federal Credit Union
Antlers Hilton Hotel
Classic Companies
Colorado Springs Credit Union
Ditz Brothers
DSoft Technology
Executive Programs, University of Colorado
Griffis Blessing
Legacy Bank
Nunn Construction
Peoples National Bank
Salzman Real Estate Services, LTD
Sierra Commercial Real Estate
The Mail Room, Inc.
Transit Mix Concrete Company
UMB Bank
US Bank
Forum sponsorship is available at a number of levels
and benefits. Contact Tom Zwirlein at (719) 255-3241
or tzwirlei@uccs.edu for information.
About the Forum The Southern Colorado Economic Forum (SCEF) is part of the College of Business outreach to the Colorado Springs Community. The Forum gathers, analyzes and disseminates information relevant to the economic health of the region. Through its efforts, the Forum has gathered a number of unique data sets. The Forum and its staff are available for fee-for-service work to analyze business situations, develop forecasts, conduct and analyze surveys and develop solutions to other business problems you may have. Examples of prior work include Small Area Forecast for the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments, Colorado Springs Airport Passenger Survey, exit survey for La-Z-Boy, and a Community Audit for the Pikes Peak Workforce Center. If you would like additional information about how the Forum can assist you, contact Fred Crowley at (719) 255-3531 or e-mail at fcrowley@uccs.edu. The QUE is available free via an electronic subscription. If you would like a subscription, send an e-mail to fcrowley@uccs.edu and have the word SUBSCRIBE as the subject.
Previous issues are available at: www.southerncoloradoeconomicforum.com
Quarterly Updates and Estimates is a publication of the
Southern Colorado Economic Forum University of Colorado at Colorado Springs College of Business and Administration
1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway P.O. Box 7150
Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150
College of Business Venkat Reddy, Ph.D., Dean
Faculty Director
Southern Colorado Economic Forum Professor of Finance Tom Zwirlein, Ph.D.
Associate Director Senior Economist
Southern Colorado Economic Forum Fred Crowley, Ph.D.
top related