This summary is based on the first quarter fiscal 2008 earnings call conducted by Lennar Corp. (LEN: chart) on March 27, 2008.

Management:

President and Chief Executive Officer: Stuart Miller
Director of Investor Relations: Scott Shipley
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer: Bruce Gross
Vice President and Treasurer: Diane Bessette
David Collins: Controller

Key Investors Issues

- EPS were a loss of 56 cents per share compared to a profit of 43 cents per share.
- Net income was a loss of $88.2 million compared to year-earlier earnings of $68.6 million.
- Revenue dropped 62% to $1.1 billion.

First Quarter Highlights

Revenues from home sales decreased 64% to $953.1 million from $2.6 billion in 2007.

- Revenues were lower primarily due to a 60% decrease in the number of home deliveries and an 8% decrease in the average sales price of homes delivered in 2008.
- New home deliveries, excluding unconsolidated entities, decreased to 3,437 homes from 8,566 homes last year.
- New home deliveries were lower in each of the company''s homebuilding segments and Homebuilding Other, compared to 2007. The average sales price of homes delivered decreased to $278,000 in from $303,000 in the same period last year, due to reduced pricing and higher sales incentives offered to homebuyers ($48,000 per home delivered compared to $45,500 per home delivered in the same period last year).

Gross margins on home sales excluding SFAS 144 valuation adjustments were $162.9 million, or 17.1% compared to $409.2 million, or 15.6%, in 2007.

- Gross margin percentage on home sales excluding SFAS 144 valuation adjustments increased compared to last year in the company''s Homebuilding East and West segments and Homebuilding Other primarily due to the company''s lower inventory basis and continued focus on reducing construction costs.
- Gross margins on home sales were $136.7 million, or 14.3%, which included $26.2 million of SFAS 144 valuation adjustments, compared to gross margins on home sales of $360.9 million, or 13.8%, in the first quarter of 2007, which included $48.3 million of SFAS 144 valuation adjustments. Gross margins on home sales excluding SFAS 144 valuation adjustments is a non-GAAP financial measure disclosed by certain of the company''s competitors and has been presented because the company finds it useful in evaluating its performance and believes that it helps readers of the company''s financial statements compare its operations with those of its competitors.

Selling, general and administrative expenses were reduced by $194.4 million, or 53% compared to the same period last year, primarily due to reductions in associate headcount and variable selling expense.

- As a percentage of revenues from home sales, selling, general and administrative expenses increased to 18.4% from 14.1% in 2007, which was primarily due to lower revenues.
- Loss on land sales totaled $26.5 million, which included $15.5 million of SFAS 144 valuation adjustments and $16.9 million of write-offs of deposits and pre-acquisition costs related to 2,600 homesites under option that the company does not intend to purchase. In the first quarter of 2007, loss on land sales totaled $26.5 million, which included $13.2 million of SFAS 144 valuation adjustments and $21 million of write-offs of deposits and pre-acquisition costs related to 4,000 homesites that were under option.
- Equity in loss from unconsolidated entities was $23 million, which included $18.9 million of SFAS 144 valuation adjustments related to assets of unconsolidated entities in which the company has investments, compared to equity in loss from unconsolidated entities of $14.2 million in the first quarter of 2007, which included $6.5 million of SFAS 144 valuation adjustments related to assets of unconsolidated entities in which the company has investments.

Management fees and other income (expense), net, totaled ($21.8) million, which included $29.6 million of APB 18 valuation adjustments to the company''s investments in unconsolidated entities, compared to management fees and other income (expense), net, of $13.8 million in the first quarter of 2007, net of $2.6 million of APB 18 valuation adjustments to the company''s investments in unconsolidated entities.

- Minority interest expense, net was $0.2 million and $0.5 million, respectively, in the first quarter of 2008 and 2007.
- Sales of land, equity in loss from unconsolidated entities, management fees and other income (expense), net and minority interest expense, net may vary from period to period depending on the timing of land sales and other transactions entered into by the company and unconsolidated entities in which it has investments.

Operating loss for the Financial Services segment was $9.7 million compared to operating earnings of $15.9 million last year.

The decline in profitability was primarily due to lower transactions in the segment''s title operations, compared to last year as a result of the overall weakness in the housing market.

- Corporate general and administrative expenses were reduced by $12.1 million, or 26% compared to the same period last year. As a percentage of total revenues, corporate general and administrative expenses increased to 3.3%, compared to 1.7% in the same period last year, primarily due to lower revenues.

Key questions from the first quarter earnings call conducted by Lennar Corp. on March 27, 2008.

David Goldberg (UBS): What percent of the 180 JV’s do you have left as you have re-approached partners, started the renegotiation process and how are you finding both the lenders and your partners are willing to renegotiate at this point?

Stuart Miller: Our joint ventures are the topic of a lot of discussion and speculation. There are some myths that have to be dispelled. First of all, many of our joint ventures are in good standing. Some of the assets, or many of the assets in a number of our ventures are well positioned and we do not have an issue with our partners or with our lender. In many of our ventures we have adequate collateral to support the venture for now and for the future. It is important to understand that there are a base number of ventures that are just in good standing. The question is of the ventures how many or what percent of them where there is some kind of dysfunction have we approached that we tackled and have we undertaken? I can not quantify that specifically but I can say it is the vast majority. There is a subset of trouble ventures where we had partners that did not step up, that did not support, that became difficult or what not and we have resolved most of those ventures. There are a few of them that are lingering. There are other ventures where we might have come to a debt maturity or to a moment in time where action needs to be taken where there is a funding requirement or something where there is just a negotiation. In all of those ventures we have worked with our partners. Where we have had difficult partners we have taken the difficult position that our equity holders would expect us to be taking. Sometimes that has meant we had to walk at the edge of the line of default or more difficult positions. But in all instances we have negotiated and positioned ourselves to be able to manage the venture and end up with a good execution. The subsets of ventures that are showing signs of trouble the vast majority of them have been reworked and there is a small subset that is still being reworked.