• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Campus Crest Communities Investor Presentation
 

Campus Crest Communities Investor Presentation

on

  • 1,306 views

2013 Campus Crest Communities Investor Presentation

2013 Campus Crest Communities Investor Presentation

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,306
Views on SlideShare
669
Embed Views
637

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

4 Embeds 637

http://campuscrestcares.com 443
http://tedrollins.org 188
http://www.slashdocs.com 3
http://www.tedrollins.net 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Campus Crest Communities Investor Presentation Campus Crest Communities Investor Presentation Presentation Transcript

    • Investor Presentation January 20130
    • Welcome to the 2012 Campus Crest Investor DayFeatured SpeakersTed W. Rollins • Over 27 years of real estate experience developing and operating service-Co-Founder, enriched housing propertiesCo-Chairman of the Board& Chief Executive Officer • Founded Campus Crest in 2004Michael S. Hartnett • More than 27 years of real estate experience developing and operating service-Co-Founder, enriched housing propertiesCo-Chairman of the Board • Founded Campus Crest in 2004& Chief Investment Officer • President of Campus Crest Real Estate Management since 2011Robert M. DannEVP & Chief Operating Officer • Over 25 years in real estate and hospitality industry with significant experience in operations, sales, asset management, systems and strategic planning • Joined Campus Crest in 2011Donnie L. Bobbitt • More than 21 years in corporate accounting and senior financial positions atEVP & Chief Financial Officer both private and public companies and Deloitte &Touche LLP • Joined Campus Crest in 2008 • President of Campus Crest Construction since 2006Brian L. SharpeEVP & Chief Facilities and • Oversaw the development, construction and maintenance of 32 properties andConstruction Officer created construction and wholesale supply companies • Joined Campus Crest in 2006 1
    • A Differentiated Strategy• Vertically integrated platform • Eliminate third party mark-ups • Control time, quality and cost • Compounding knowledge • Manage the ongoing facility• Source “off-market” development sites• Prototype construction• Universal brand across portfolio• Consistent operational protocol• Leading residence life program 2
    • Reliable Growth Trends Since IPO Quarterly Student Housing Gross Asset Value ($mm) (1) Revenue ($mm) (2) Quarterly NOI ($mm) (3) $22.4 $12.3 $770.9 76.6% 102.8% 99.6% $12.7 $6.1 $380.1 3Q10 (IPO) 3Q12 3Q10 (IPO) 3Q12 3Q10 (IPO) 3Q12 Quarterly FFO ($mm) (4) Bed Count (5) Markets (5) $7.4 44 61.1% 24,448 69.2% 80.0% $4.6 26 13,580 4Q10 3Q12 3Q10 (IPO) 3Q12 3Q10 (IPO) 3Q12 Note: Growth calculated as quarter-over-quarter growth between Q3 2010 and Q3 2012, except for FFO which is growth from Q4 2010 (1) Un-depreciated book value of total assets; ending balances as of 09/30/2010 and 09/30/2012 (2) Quarterly total rental revenue plus total service revenue for the wholly-owned operating portfolio (3) Quarterly NOI for the wholly-owned operating portfolio (4) Q4 2010 FFO represents normalized FFO as disclosed in the Earnings Release 3 (5) All operating properties and announced developments for delivery in 2013
    • Capital Allocations Across Diverse National MarketsPortfolio Highlights Operating Development Total PortfolioProperties 39 6 45Units 7,670 1,314 8,984Beds 20,884 3,564 24,448Weighted Average Age (1) 3.1 0.0 2.7Median Distance to Campus 0.5 0.3 0.5Occupancy for 2012/2013 90.5% N/A 90.5% (1) As of 09/30/2012 4
    • Portfolio Characteristics Undergrad Enrollment Undergrad Enrollment Growth (‘05-’10) 6.0% 16.4% 18.2% 18.0% 43.5% 23.5% 18.8% 26.3% 10.7% 18.5% 20,000+ 15,000-19,999 10,000-14,999 5,000-9,999 <5,000 20%+ 12%-19% 7%-11% 1%-6% <1% Average: 13,008 Average: 10.6% Source: US Department of Education, NCES, US News and World Report, College Compass Note: Data in pie graphs weighted by beds 5
    • Portfolio Characteristics (cont’d) 75th Percentile Reading and Math SAT Annual Tuition Scores 12.5% 13.5% 16.9% 20.5% 21.7% 18.0% 25.0% 20.2% 34.3% 17.3%$9,000+ $8,000-$8,999 $7,000-$7,999 $6,000-$6,999 <$6,000 1,240 - 1,340 1,190 - 1,230 1,160 - 1,190 1,080 - 1,150 1,070 > Average: $8,446 Average: 1,167 Source: US Department of Education, NCES, US News and World Report, College Compass Note: Data in pie graphs weighted by beds 6
    • Portfolio Characteristics (cont’d) Distance to Campus (miles) Age of Assets (years) 19.2% 14.6% 23.8% 22.4% 15.6% 16.1% 16.6% 20.4% 20.5% 30.9% <.29 .3-.49 .5-.79 .8-.99 1.0+ 0 (2013 Deliv.) .1 1 to 3.9 4 to 4.9 5+ Median: 0.5 Median: 3.1 Source: Google Maps Note: Data in pie graphs weighted by beds 7
    • Portfolio Characteristics (cont’d) Age of Schools (years) 14.4% 21.8% 17.9% 16.9% 29.0% 150+ 125-149 110-124 95-109 94 > Average: 116 Source: School Websites 8
    • Same Store Portfolio Characteristics Total Q3 2012 Wholly-Owned NOI of $12.3MM (47.1% Y-o-Y increase)New Store• 11 Properties Same Store• 91.9% Average 3Q12 Occupancy • 21 Properties• $518 Total RevPOB 39% • 92.0% Average 3Q12 Occupancy• 60.3% Margin 61% • $500 Total RevPOB• 272.6% NOI Growth • 51.8% Margin • 6.4% NOI Growth Same Store New Store 9
    • 10
    • School Choice and Development CCG School Categories 4-year Public Schools • Flagship • Non-Flagship Private • For Profit • Not-for-Profit Other Public• We seek development sites at 4-year public schools• Focus on mid-market schools at the upper-end of the range and opportunistically develop at flagship schools Source: US Department of Education, NCES, US News and World Report, College Compass 11
    • Where America Goes To College Flagship and Non-Flagship schools represent 74% of the 5.7 million total undergraduate students and only 53% of the schools Private For Profit Other Public • 29 schools (4% of 633 schools) • 100 schools (16% of 633 schools) • 0.2 million of the 5.7 million students • 0.4 million of the 5.7 million students Private Not-For Profit • 170 schools (27% of 633 schools) Non-Flagship • 0.9 million of the 5.7 million students • 252 schools (40% of 633 schools) • 2.7 million of the 5.7 million students Flagship • 82 schools (13% of 633 schools) • 1.5 million of the 5.7 million students Source: US Department of Education, NCES, US News and World Report, College Compass12
    • Shift Towards Value in Education 18,800 Average Undergraduate Enrollments• Knowledge-based economy requires a college education 11,000• Non-Flagship schools offer a better value proposition to many students • Growth at these schools has outpaced the Flagship schools Flagship (82) Non-Flagship (252) Enrollment Growth(1) (‘05-’10) $31,000 11.9% 9.1% Average Tuition(2) $8,700 $7,300 Flagship (82) Non-Flagship (252) Flagship (82) Non-Flagship (252) Private-NP (170) Source: US Department of Education, NCES, US News and World Report, College Compass (1) Average enrollment growth from Fall 2005 through Fall 2010 (2) Average tuition per full-time undergraduate student 13
    • Research Based Market SelectionKey Factors• Strong enrollment growth trends • Value proposition of degree awarded vs. tuition cost and starting salaries• Limited competing product• Proximity to campus • % of students on need-based financial aid• Favorable supply/demand • Other key metrics characteristics• % students housed on-campus• Top home metro areas of students 14
    • Research Based Market Selection15
    • We Choose Markets with High Barriers to Entry • Developed area surrounding a college or university – “desirability zone” – creates high barriers to entry • Buildable sites within zone and close to campus are limited • Research based market selection with local market execution drives successful site acquisition process • Barriers to entry are high in university towns, driven by: • Political, • Social and • Economic forces16
    • 17
    • Research-Based Market Selection Executed Locally On-the-Ground, Local Support & Knowledge• Network of on-the-ground, regional site acquisition Over 90% of our sites are not specialists actively marketed or listed • Standard analysis and data provided• Interview administration, student and faculty• Shop bookstore• Competitive survey of: • On-campus housing • Purpose-built housing • Traditional multifamily • Single family residential rentals• Construction feasibility review 18
    • Robust Pipeline of Identified Markets and Sites for Future Development• Identified 250 potential markets and conducting due diligence on 80 sites Under LOI or Contract (30 sites) 50 sites (3-5 years) 20 sites (1-3 years) 10 sites ( < 12 months )• With a cost of ~$25 million each, current 80 opportunities equate to ~$2 billion of potential investment• Expect to develop ~$150 – $200 million of Grove® product for 2014 delivery, which equates to 6 – 8 projects • Choose sites from the ~10 that are ready this year Strong track record of 45 projects (24,448 beds), equating to nearly $960 million of investment in new or value-add development 19
    • Six Projects Currently Under Construction Projects for Delivery in 2013 Miles to Total Est. Cost (1)Project Ownership University Served Total Enrollment Campus Units Beds ($mm)Wholly-Owned OnThe Grove at Ft. Collins 100.0% Colorado State University 26,735 Campus 218 612 $31.8The Grove at Muncie 100.0% Ball State University 18,241 0.1 216 584 24.3The Grove at Pullman 100.0% Washington State University 19,255 0.0 216 584 26.7 (2)Average/Median/Sub Total 21,410 0.0 650 1,780 $82.8Joint VentureThe Grove at Norman 20.0% University of Oklahoma 23,850 0.6 224 600 $26.4The Grove at State College 20.0% Penn State University 45,628 0.8 216 584 26.9The Grove at Indiana 20.0% Indiana University of Pennsylvan 15,132 0.6 224 600 26.6 (2)Average/Median/Sub Total 28,203 0.6 664 1,784 $79.9 (2)Average/Median/Total 24,807 0.3 1,314 3,564 $162.7 (1) Total Enrollment is from school websites as of fall 2011 (2) Total Enrollment is an average, Miles to Campus is the median, while others are totals 20
    • Prototypical Development Typical Land Size 4 –15 Acres Height 35 – 65 Feet Density 15 – 45 Units Per Acre Beds 550 – 1000 Parking Typically Surface or Structured21
    • Case Study: The Grove at Flagstaff, AZ Building a Prototype• Tracked market for five years to find • 216 units/ 584 beds appropriate opportunity • 100% occupancy as of 09/30/2012• Moved quickly to purchase defaulted • Additional land owned for a Phase II municipal bond deal• 0.3 miles from Northern Arizona University• Opened in August 2012• Total cost of $33.1 million 22
    • Case Study: The Grove at Flagstaff, AZ Building a Prototype• Basketball and volleyball courts • Game room and coffee bar • Community clubhouse • Resort-style swimming pool • Fitness center • Ample parking • Gated entrance 23
    • Adaptive Floor Plan 3 Bedroom Floor Plan• Floor plan with bed-bath parity can be adapted to more dense sites 2 Bedroom Floor Plan • Private bedrooms with keyed locks • En suite bathrooms • State-of-the-art technology • Modern appliances, incl. washers & dryers • Full furnishings and full kitchens 24
    • Case Study: The Grove at Stillwater, OK Selective Value-Add Acquisitions• Purchased existing asset in Stillwater, OK in December 2011 • Redeveloped existing 384 beds and built an additional 228 new beds, a new clubhouse and amenity package (59% increase in bed count) • 612 bed project opened in August 2012 • As of 09/30/2012, The Grove at Stillwater was 100.0% leased • Projected return on cost from 9.0% - 9.3%• CCG utilized its vertically integrated platform to create value through the renovation and expansion of the property 25
    • Addition of Townhome Living CCG’s Answer to Demand for More Traditional Residential Living• Part of Stillwater, OK expansion included 144 beds in townhomes designed by CCG• More of a “house-like feel” with: • Kitchen and common area on ground floor • Bedrooms on 2nd and 3rd floor Front • Ground-level front doors • Back porch areas for social gatherings and grilling• Satisfies another growth sector in the markets we serve• CCG created a version that fits on its typical slab without sacrificing much Rear density 26
    • 27
    • Cost and Quality Advantage Repetition and Refinement of Prototype Captive General Contractor and Construction Manager ~165 Days Captive Wholesale Supply ~15-20% Cost Advantage, Creating Price and Quality Advantage in the Market28
    • Repetitive Construction Process “A Better Mouse Trap”BUILD the plan.• Identify design problems or inefficiencies• Correct and memorialize as we go BUILD OPERATEOPERATE the property.• Identify specific areas for improvement during operating experience REFINEREFINE the design.• Incorporate everything learned in the previous cycle Built same module over 570 times 29
    • General Contractor and Construction Manager Framing Drywall HVAC Brick Plumbing Lumber ElectricWe partner with preferred Subcontractors and Vendors who understand our prototype and construction process30
    • General Contractor and Construction Manager Not having to learn a new building for each cycle allows us to focus on efficiently delivering a high-quality product on-time and on-budget Work Around Schedule Construction Schedule Progress Anomaly Progress Review31
    • Cost Trends PPI: Nonmetallic mineral products – Ready-mix concrete, (Index 1982=100, NSA) PPI: Nonmetallic mineral products – Gypsum products, (Index 1982=100, NSA) PPI: Lumber and wood products – Softwood lumber, (Index 1982=100, NSA) PPI: Residential construction, (Index Jun-1986=100, NSA)32
    • Understanding Cost Trends Results in Efficient Volume Purchasing33
    • Our Costs Have Remained Stable34
    • 35
    • We Know Our Customers “Understanding the wants and needs of studentsallows us to connect with them and their parents in a meaningful way.” - Ted W. Rollins, CEOWe Study Students What they value What they need What they aspire toThen…We Create an UnmatchedCustomer Experience Teach life skills initiatives Enrich their college experience Foster a sense of community36
    • A Specialized Operating Platform• Operationally intensive business requires the best: • People • Systems • Practices For the best Results! 37
    • Our People Make the Difference• Critical to recruit, train and retain top performers• Management continuity across platform • Property-level execution with central control • Roving Manager program• MIT program designed to source and train field-level talent• Regular high-impact training for each area of discipline• Area management with field-level experience • Point system workload balancing 38
    • Proprietary Systems Drive PerformanceRevenue Management System • Data-rich daily, weekly and monthly reporting and matrices Expense Management & • Real-time operational data comparing regions and Margin Focus performance against budgets • Automated call-in system for after hours issues with calling Customer Experience tree ending with head of CCREM • Semi-annual surveys • Bi-monthly management meetings with properties Employee Experience • Semi-annual surveys39
    • Best Practices Drive Consistency• Standardized product allows for • Performance measured on maximizing systematic management revenue and controlling expenses for long term value creation • Best practices adapted to work regionally/nationally • Customer experience through lifestyle programming integral to• Standard operating procedures across value creation portfolio using centralized approach • Supported by local decision making 40
    • Industry Leading Residence Life Program Social Cultural Outreach Recreational Educational Sustainable “By having an unparalleled customer experience where students build their social life and community, we create ‘sticky residents’.” - Ted W. Rollins, CEO41
    • Building Revenue and NOI• Tiered pricing revenue • Co-branding opportunities and management system strategic alliances • Driving demand with stepped • Strong and differentiated residence strategy life program • Balanced approach to rate and • Sustainability initiatives driving occupancy down operational costs• Increase wallet share of residents 42
    • The Results from Our Operational Initiatives are Compelling Same Store Occupancy Same Store RevPOB (1) Same Store NOI Margins 70 bps 210 bps 2.5% 51.8% 92.0% $500 89.9% 51.1% $488 3Q11 3Q12 3Q11 3Q12 3Q11 3Q12 Delivery Occupancy (2) Expected Delivery Yield Ranges (3) 97.5% 9.6% 9.6% 8.4% 8.4% 80.9% 9.2% 8.0% 3Q11 3Q12 2011 (Second Year) 2012 (First Year) Note: Same Store represents 21 wholly-owned properties (1) Quarterly total revenue per occupied bed (2) Occupancy for the five wholly-owned 2011 deliveries and three wholly-owned 2012 deliveries; Valdosta was acquired from HSRE and added to the wholly-owned pool in July 2012 (3) Weighted average expected yield range for the second year of the six 2011 deliveries and the first year of the six 201243 deliveries (wholly-owned and JV)
    • Pre-Leasing Update AY ‘13/’14 vs. AY ‘12/’13 Pre-Leasing 2013/2014 2012/2013 Properties Units Beds Signed % Signed %OperatingWholly-Owned 32 6,248 16,936 4,475 26.4% 3,881 22.9%Joint Venture 7 1,422 3,948 601 15.2% 367 9.3%Total Operating 39 7,670 20,884 5,076 24.3% 4,248 20.3%2013 DeliveriesWholly-Owned 3 650 1,780 259 14.6% n/a n/aJoint Venture 3 664 1,784 239 13.4% n/a n/aTotal 2013 Deliveries 6 1,314 3,564 498 14.0% n/a n/aTotal Portfolio 45 8,984 24,448 5,574 22.8% 4,248 20.3% Note: As of 12/12/2012 and 12/12/2011 44
    • 45
    • Balancing Economic, Environmental & Social Outcomes with Every Decision• Our company-wide “People & Planet” initiative balances five constituencies: Customer Co-workers Communities Environment Investors Social Initiatives • Provide students an opportunity to Grove Outreach (“GO”) contribute to social and community Team causes Horatio Alger • Housing scholarships Association • Gobbler Giveaway Holiday Helping Hand • Holiday Bike Bonanza “Doing good is good business.” – Ted W. Rollins, CEO 46
    • Balancing Economic, Environmental & Social Outcomes with Every Decision (cont’d)Environmental Initiatives • Solar Energy InstallationsImproving Our Footprint • Urban Forest Project • Green Purchasing Priorities • Water & Energy Efficiency Building Innovations • Prototype Refinement • LEED Registrations Educating Our • Sustainable Living Education Customers • Green Initiative Events • Conserving Through E-waste CompetitionsReduce, Reuse, Recycle • Habitat for Humanity Donations • Paperless Digital Leasing CCG received Emerald Asset Management’s 2012 “Green Company Executive” Award47
    • Ongoing Portfolio MonitoringRegular Asset Monitoring Fall Asset Review• Daily review of critical metrics • Capital recycling evaluation on wholly-• Portfolio benchmarking owned and joint venture portfolio• Semi-annual physical inspection of • Market survey updated to determine every asset competitive landscape of off- and on- campus supply • 800+ check list items per property • Asset performance review relative to• Quarterly property quality & lease historic results and portfolio audits 48
    • Conservative Financial Management with Multiple Capital Sources Capital Structure ($mm) $900.0• Target an investment grade profile over $825.8 $800.0 a 2 – 3 year period, and manage $700.0 capital stack to those metrics $600.0 $500.0• Maintain low leverage and adequate $400.0 liquidity $300.0 $200.0• Opportunistically access capital and 36.4% $100.0 maintain multiple sources $0.0 09/30/2012 Consolidated Debt ProRata Share of JV Debt Preferred Equity Common Equity Note: Share price of $12.12 as of 01/04/2013 49
    • Proactive Management of Debt($mm) 100.0%$350 • Pro rata share of all debt is $301.0 million 100%$300 • Average maturity of 5+ years and average 79.6% rate is 4.0% 75%$250 • Revolver currently being amended to include$200 new maturity date in 2017, plus a one-year 50% extension option to 2018 41.1%$150 36.2% $116$100 25% 16.0% $61 $62 $50 7.7% $25 5.2% $15 $15 $8 $0 0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thereaf ter Other Debt RC Capacity Credit Facility Pro Rata JV Debt Construction Debt Mortgage Debt Term Loan Note: Pro forma for (i) pay down of Huntsville term loan with credit facility and inclusion in the borrowing base, (ii) pay down of $50 million of outstandings on the revolver with the new credit facility term loan proceeds, (iii) a $18.1 million Freddie loan on Statesboro, which will pay down the outstanding term loan, and (iv) exercise of extension options where50 available
    • Proven Access to Capital Markets Equity Joint Venture Capital$382.3mm $75.5mm $57.5mm $17.1mm $16.6mm $12.2mmInitial Public Follow-on 8.0% Perpetual AY 2013/2014 AY 2012/2013 AY 2011/2012 Offering Common Preferred Joint Venture Joint Venture Joint Venture Equity Offering Offering Projects Projects Projects July 2012 July 2012 Feb 2012 2012 2011 2011 Debt $300mm $250mm $125mm $18.1mm $40.1mm $48.5mmSr. Unsecured Sr. Unsecured Sr. Secured Freddie Mac Freddie Mac Freddie Mac Revolving Revolving Revolving Sr. Secured Sr. Secured Sr. SecuredCredit Facility Credit Facility Credit Facility Debt Debt Debt Jan 2013 Jan 2012 Oct 2010 Q4 2012 Q3 2012 Q3 2011 $106mm $104mm $85mm AY 2013/2014 AY 2012/2013 AY 2011/2012 Construction Construction Construction Loans Loans Loans 2012 2011 2011/201051
    • Proven Access to Capital Markets Primary Capital Providers • Citigroup Global Markets Inc. • Bank of America Merrill Lynch • Barclays Capital Inc. • RBC Capital Markets, LLC • Raymond James & Associates Research Analyst Coverage • Barclays Capital Inc. • Raymond James & Associates • Citigroup Global Markets Inc. • RBC Capital Markets, LLC • Goldman Sachs & Co. • Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. • Janney Capital Markets • Sidoti & Company, LLC • MLV & Co LLC52
    • Operational and Leasing Performance Relative to Peers Higher Margins at Lower Occupancy (1) AY ‘11/’12 vs. ‘12/’13 Final Leasing (2) 53.4% 52.4% 52.0% 94.7% 90.5% 98.2% 97.4% 89.6% 92.7% 90.2% 91.3% 96.1% CCG EDR ACC CCG EDR ACC AY ‘12/’13 Delivery Yield Ranges (3) 9.6% • CCG represents YR1 yields per Q3 2012 earnings call 8.0% • EDR represents initial expected YR1 yield range 9.2% 7.0% 7.1% • ACC represents YR1 yields per Q3 2012 earnings call CCG EDR ACC Source: Company filings, FactSet and SNL (1) Average for twelve months ended 09/30/2012; total wholly-owned beds (2) Leasing statistics as of 09/30/2012 for CCG, ACC and EDR; includes wholly-owned beds with prior year leasing data. CCG includes 21 same store assets, four 2011 wholly-owned deliveries, and four assets acquired from HSRE over the last 12 months53 (3) Per Q3 2012 transcripts
    • Attractive Valuation Relative to Peers NTM Implied Cap Rate (1) 2013 FFO Multiple (2) Weighted Average = 19.2x Weighted Average = 5.4% 20.2x 19.6x 6.7% 5.9% 5.1% 14.3x CCG EDR ACC CCG EDR ACC Annualized Dividend Yield (3) Potential CCG Valuation Upside 5.3% Weighted Average = 3.2% • CCG 2013 FFO Consensus: $0.85/share 3.7% 2.9% • 2013 Average Peer FFO Multiple: 19.9x • Implied CCG Share Price: $16.92 • Implied CCG Dividend Yield: 3.8% CCG EDR ACC Source: Company filings, FactSet, SNL and Wall Street Research Note: Pro forma for events subsequent to quarter-end (1) Wall Street Research as of 01/04/2013 (2) Based on respective company share prices and consensus 2013 FFO estimates as of 01/04/201354 (3) Based on respective company share prices as of 01/04/2013 and last quarter annualized dividend per share
    • The Campus Crest Difference• Research based market selection• Prototypical development• Vertical integration• Proactive balance sheet management55
    • 56
    • Campus Crest Portfolio Wholly-Owned Portfolio (excl. 2012 & 2013 Deliveries) Distance to CampusProperty City Primary University # of Props Units Beds Enrollment 11/12 Tuition (Median) AgeWholly-Owned Operating PropertiesThe Grove at Asheville, NC Asheville, NC UNC - Asheville 154 448 3,665 3,990 0.1 7.1The Grove at Carrollton, GA Carrollton, GA University of West Georgia 168 492 11,646 6,182 0.1 6.1The Grove at Las Cruces, NM Las Cruces, NM New Mexico State University 168 492 18,024 5,827 0.4 6.1The Grove at Milledgeville, GA Milledgeville, GA Georgia College & State University 168 492 6,636 8,344 0.1 6.1The Grove at Abilene, TX Abilene, TX Abilene Christian University 192 504 4,558 25,270 0.5 5.1The Grove at Ellensburg, WA Ellensburg, WA Central Washington University 192 504 11,320 7,827 0.5 5.0The Grove at Greeley, CO Greeley, CO University of Northern Colorado 192 504 12,599 6,623 1.0 5.1The Grove at Jacksonville, AL Jacksonville, AL Jacksonville State University 192 504 9,490 6,780 0.2 5.1The Grove at Mobile, AL--Phase I & II Mobile, AL University of South Alabama 384 1,008 15,009 7,180 0.0 5.1The Grove at Nacogdoches, TX Nacogdoches, TX Stephen F. Austin State University 196 522 12,903 7,344 0.4 5.1The Grove at Cheney, WA Cheney, WA Eastern Washington University 192 512 12,130 7,272 0.5 4.0The Grove at Jonesboro, AR Jonesboro, AR Arkansas State University 192 504 13,900 6,934 0.3 4.1The Grove at Lubbock, TX Lubbock, TX Texas Tech University 192 504 32,327 8,260 1.2 4.1The Grove at Stephenville, TX Stephenville, TX Tarleton State University 192 504 9,892 4,319 0.8 4.1The Grove at Troy, AL Troy, AL Troy University 192 514 6,795 7,209 0.4 4.1The Grove at Waco, TX Waco, TX Baylor University 192 504 15,029 31,658 0.8 4.1The Grove at Wichita, KS Wichita, KS Wichita State University 192 504 15,100 5,890 1.1 4.1The Grove at Wichita Falls, TX Wichita Falls, TX Midwestern State University 192 504 6,180 6,910 1.2 4.1The Grove at Murfreesboro, TN Murfreesboro, TN Middle Tennessee State University 186 504 26,442 7,018 0.8 3.1The Grove at San Marcos, TX San Marcos, TX Texas State University 192 504 34,087 8,232 1.7 3.1The Grove at Huntsville, TX Huntsville, TX Sam Houston State University 192 504 17,617 6,755 0.2 2.1The Grove at Statesboro, GA Statesboro, GA Georgia Southern University 200 536 20,212 6,606 0.7 2.1The Grove at Ames, IA Ames, IA Iowa State University 216 584 29,887 7,486 0.3 1.1The Grove at Clarksville, TN Clarksville, TN Austin Peay State University 208 560 10,873 6,690 1.3 1.1The Grove at Columbia, MO Columbia, MO University of Missouri 216 632 31,745 8,989 0.9 1.1The Grove at Ft. Wayne, IN Ft. Wayne, IN Indiana University-Purdue University-Fort Wayne 204 540 14,326 7,273 1.1 1.1Total - Wholly-Owned Operating 27 5,156 13,884 15,477 8,572 0.5 4.02012 Wholly-owned JV AcquisitionsThe Grove at Moscow, ID Moscow, ID University of Idaho 192 504 12,312 5,856 0.5 3.1The Grove at Valdosta, GA Valdosta, GA Valdosta State University 216 584 13,089 6,645 1.9 1.1Total - 2012 Wholly-owned JV Acquisitions 2 408 1,088 12,701 6,251 1.2 2.1Total - Wholly-owned 29 5,564 14,972 15,278 8,406 0.5 3.9 Note: Properties listed as owned as of 09/30/2012 57
    • Campus Crest Portfolio (cont’d) Joint Venture & Development Portfolios Distance to CampusProperty City Primary University # of Props Units Beds Enrollment 11/12 Tuition (Median) AgeJoint Venture Operating PropertiesThe Grove at Lawrence, KS Lawrence, KS University of Kansas 172 500 25,448 8,732 1.6 3.1The Grove at San Angelo, TX San Angelo, TX Angelo State University 192 504 7,084 9,848 0.3 3.1The Grove at Conway, AR Conway, AR University of Central Arkansas 180 504 11,163 7,183 0.4 2.1The Grove at Denton, TX Denton, TX University of North Texas 216 584 35,694 8,376 0.8 1.1Total - Joint Venture Operating 4 760 2,092 19,847 8,535 0.6 2.4Total Operating Portfolio (Excl. 2012 Deliveries) 33 6,324 17,064 15,849 8,422 0.5 3.72012 DeliveriesThe Grove at Auburn, AL Auburn, AL Auburn University 216 600 25,469 7,900 0.0 0.1The Grove at Flagstaff, AZ Flagstaff, AZ Northern Arizona University 216 584 17,761 7,364 0.2 0.1The Grove at Nacogdoches, TX - Phase II Nacogdoches, TX Stephen F. Austin State University 64 160 12,903 7,344 0.4 5.1The Grove at Orono, ME Orono, ME University of Maine 188 620 11,168 10,636 0.5 0.1Wholly-Owned Deliveries 3 684 1,964 18,133 8,633 0.2 0.1The Grove at Fayetteville, AR Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas 232 632 23,199 7,174 0.5 0.1The Grove at Laramie, WY Laramie, WY University of Wyoming 224 612 10,568 4,125 0.3 0.1The Grove at Stillwater, OK Stillwater, OK Oklahoma State University 206 612 22,411 7,108 0.8 0.1Joint Venture Deliveries 3 662 1,856 18,726 6,136 0.5 0.1Total - 2012 Deliveries 6 1,346 3,820 18,429 7,385 0.4 0.1Total Operating Portfolio (Incl. 2012 Deliveries) 39 7,670 20,884 16,257 8,258 0.5 3.12013 DeliveriesThe Grove at Ft. Collins Ft. Collins, CO Colorado State University 218 612 26,735 6,986 0.0 0.0The Grove at Muncie Muncie, IN Ball State University 216 584 18,241 8,544 0.1 0.0The Grove at Pullman Pullman, WA Washington State University 216 584 19,255 10,799 0.0 0.0Wholly-Owned Deliveries 3 650 1,780 21,410 8,776 0.0 n/aThe Grove at Norman Norman, OK University of Oklahoma 224 600 23,850 7,125 0.6 0.0The Grove at State College State College, PA Penn State University 216 584 45,628 15,984 0.8 0.0The Grove at Indiana Indiana, PA Indiana University of Pennsylvania 224 600 15,132 8,352 0.6 0.0Joint Venture Deliveries 3 664 1,784 28,203 10,487 0.6 n/aTotal - 2013 Deliveries 6 1,314 3,564 24,807 9,632 0.3 n/aTotal Portfolio - Incl. Deliveries through 2013 45 8,984 24,448 17,423 8,446 0.5 2.7 Note: Properties listed as owned as of 09/30/2012 58
    • Forward Looking StatementsThis presentation contains certain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions, discuss future expectations, describe future plans and strategies,contain financial and operating projections or state other forward-looking information. The Company’s ability to predictresults or the actual effect of future events, actions, plans or strategies is inherently uncertain. Although the Companybelieves that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, theCompany’s actual results and performance could differ materially from those set forth in, or implied by, the forward-lookingstatements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any of these forward-looking statements, which reflect theCompany’s views on this date. Furthermore, except as required by law, the Company is under no duty to, and does notintend to, update any of our forward-looking statements after this date, whether as a result of new information, futureevents or otherwise.This presentation does not constitute, and may not be used in connection with, an offer or solicitation by anyone in anyjurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation is not permitted by law or in which the person making the offer or solicitationis not qualified to do so or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such offer or solicitation.59