Yesterday we spent some time discussing the Milken Best Performing Cities Index data, and took a look at the “cream of the crop” from the Milken 2007 Large Cities Index. 

We received quite a bit of very appropriate commentary yesterday and this morning criticizing the Milken, and the overwhelming majority of the criticism focused on a common theme. 

A major weakness of the Milken is the fact that it is derived and calculated very two years; for this reason some of the markets ranked highly in 2007 are not fairing as well today (think Florida and California markets for example, as both state economies are struggling mightily of late).  We agree wholeheartedly with this criticism, and that is one reason that we track current total nonfarm job growth and job growth by supersector in each and every market in our database.  The economic picture in markets (at least with regard to job growth and unemployment) has been changing impressively even month to month as the nation faces these challenging economic times, rendering the Milken Institute’s 2007 rankings off target for some markets.  Things are likely to get more interesting over the next few quarters. 

This major weakness noted, we still like the Milken and consider it to be a useful measure of the “job creation efforts and potential” in a given market. 

Here are the lowest ranked cities in the Milken large city Best Performing Cities Index –

1. Lansing, MI (200)
2. Hickory, NC (199)
3. Canton, OH (198)
4. Toledo, OH (197)
5. Warren – Troy, MI (196)

On Monday we’ll be back with a look at the best class C multifamily asset class cap rates in our database.

Have a great weekend.

Technorati Tags: ,