2013 Campus Crest Communities Investor Presentation

1. Investor Presentation
January 2013
0

2. Welcome to the 2012 Campus Crest Investor Day
Featured Speakers
Ted W. Rollins • Over 27 years of real estate experience developing and operating service-
Co-Founder, enriched housing properties
Co-Chairman of the Board
& Chief Executive Officer • Founded Campus Crest in 2004
Michael S. Hartnett • More than 27 years of real estate experience developing and operating service-
Co-Founder, enriched housing properties
Co-Chairman of the Board • Founded Campus Crest in 2004
& Chief Investment Officer
• President of Campus Crest Real Estate Management since 2011
Robert M. Dann
EVP & 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 2011
Donnie L. Bobbitt • More than 21 years in corporate accounting and senior financial positions at
EVP & Chief Financial Officer both private and public companies and Deloitte &Touche LLP
• Joined Campus Crest in 2008
• President of Campus Crest Construction since 2006
Brian L. Sharpe
EVP & Chief Facilities and • Oversaw the development, construction and maintenance of 32 properties and
Construction Officer created construction and wholesale supply companies
• Joined Campus Crest in 2006
1

3. 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

4. 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

5. Capital Allocations Across Diverse National Markets
Portfolio Highlights
Operating Development Total Portfolio
Properties 39 6 45
Units 7,670 1,314 8,984
Beds 20,884 3,564 24,448
Weighted Average Age (1) 3.1 0.0 2.7
Median Distance to Campus 0.5 0.3 0.5
Occupancy for 2012/2013 90.5% N/A 90.5%
(1) As of 09/30/2012
4

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 10

12. 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

13. 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 Compass
12

14. 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

15. Research Based Market Selection
Key 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

16. Research Based Market Selection
15

17. 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 forces
16

18. 17

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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 On
The Grove at Ft. Collins 100.0% Colorado State University 26,735 Campus 218 612 $31.8
The Grove at Muncie 100.0% Ball State University 18,241 0.1 216 584 24.3
The 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 $82.8
Joint Venture
The Grove at Norman 20.0% University of Oklahoma 23,850 0.6 224 600 $26.4
The Grove at State College 20.0% Penn State University 45,628 0.8 216 584 26.9
The 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

22. 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 Structured
21

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 27

29. 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 Market
28

30. Repetitive Construction Process
“A Better Mouse Trap”
BUILD the plan.
• Identify design problems or inefficiencies
• Correct and memorialize as we go
BUILD OPERATE
OPERATE the property.
• Identify specific areas for improvement
during operating experience
REFINE
REFINE the design.
• Incorporate everything learned in the
previous cycle
Built same module over 570 times
29

31. General Contractor and Construction
Manager
Framing
Drywall HVAC
Brick Plumbing
Lumber Electric
We partner with preferred Subcontractors and Vendors who understand our
prototype and construction process
30

32. 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 Review
31

33. 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

34. Understanding Cost Trends Results in
Efficient Volume Purchasing
33

35. Our Costs Have Remained Stable
34

36. 35

37. We Know Our Customers
“Understanding the wants and needs of students
allows us to connect with them and their parents in a
meaningful way.” - Ted W. Rollins, CEO
We Study Students
What they value
What they need
What they aspire to
Then…
We Create an Unmatched
Customer Experience
Teach life skills initiatives
Enrich their college experience
Foster a sense of community
36

38. A Specialized Operating Platform
• Operationally intensive business
requires the best:
• People
• Systems
• Practices
For the best Results!
37

39. 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

40. Proprietary Systems Drive
Performance
Revenue 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 surveys
39

41. 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

42. 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, CEO
41

43. 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

44. 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 2012
43 deliveries (wholly-owned and JV)

45. Pre-Leasing Update
AY ‘13/’14 vs. AY ‘12/’13 Pre-Leasing
2013/2014 2012/2013
Properties Units Beds Signed % Signed %
Operating
Wholly-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 Deliveries
Wholly-Owned 3 650 1,780 259 14.6% n/a n/a
Joint Venture 3 664 1,784 239 13.4% n/a n/a
Total 2013 Deliveries 6 1,314 3,564 498 14.0% n/a n/a
Total 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

46. 45

47. 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

48. Balancing Economic, Environmental
& Social Outcomes with Every Decision (cont’d)
Environmental Initiatives
• Solar Energy Installations
Improving 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 Competitions
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle • Habitat for Humanity Donations
• Paperless Digital Leasing
CCG received Emerald Asset Management’s 2012
“Green Company Executive” Award
47

49. Ongoing Portfolio Monitoring
Regular 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

50. 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

51. 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 where
50 available

52. Proven Access to Capital Markets
Equity Joint Venture Capital
$382.3mm $75.5mm $57.5mm $17.1mm $16.6mm $12.2mm
Initial 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 $48.5mm
Sr. Unsecured Sr. Unsecured Sr. Secured Freddie Mac Freddie Mac Freddie Mac
Revolving Revolving Revolving Sr. Secured Sr. Secured Sr. Secured
Credit 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 2011/2010
51

53. 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 LLC
52

54. 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 months
53 (3) Per Q3 2012 transcripts

55. 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 01/04/2013
54 (3) Based on respective company share prices as of 01/04/2013 and last quarter annualized dividend per share

56. The Campus Crest Difference
• Research based market selection
• Prototypical development
• Vertical integration
• Proactive balance sheet management
55

57. 56

58. Campus Crest Portfolio
Wholly-Owned Portfolio (excl. 2012 & 2013 Deliveries)
Distance to Campus
Property City Primary University # of Props Units Beds Enrollment '11/'12 Tuition (Median) Age
Wholly-Owned Operating Properties
The Grove at Asheville, NC Asheville, NC UNC - Asheville 154 448 3,665 3,990 0.1 7.1
The Grove at Carrollton, GA Carrollton, GA University of West Georgia 168 492 11,646 6,182 0.1 6.1
The Grove at Las Cruces, NM Las Cruces, NM New Mexico State University 168 492 18,024 5,827 0.4 6.1
The Grove at Milledgeville, GA Milledgeville, GA Georgia College & State University 168 492 6,636 8,344 0.1 6.1
The Grove at Abilene, TX Abilene, TX Abilene Christian University 192 504 4,558 25,270 0.5 5.1
The Grove at Ellensburg, WA Ellensburg, WA Central Washington University 192 504 11,320 7,827 0.5 5.0
The Grove at Greeley, CO Greeley, CO University of Northern Colorado 192 504 12,599 6,623 1.0 5.1
The Grove at Jacksonville, AL Jacksonville, AL Jacksonville State University 192 504 9,490 6,780 0.2 5.1
The Grove at Mobile, AL--Phase I & II Mobile, AL University of South Alabama 384 1,008 15,009 7,180 0.0 5.1
The Grove at Nacogdoches, TX Nacogdoches, TX Stephen F. Austin State University 196 522 12,903 7,344 0.4 5.1
The Grove at Cheney, WA Cheney, WA Eastern Washington University 192 512 12,130 7,272 0.5 4.0
The Grove at Jonesboro, AR Jonesboro, AR Arkansas State University 192 504 13,900 6,934 0.3 4.1
The Grove at Lubbock, TX Lubbock, TX Texas Tech University 192 504 32,327 8,260 1.2 4.1
The Grove at Stephenville, TX Stephenville, TX Tarleton State University 192 504 9,892 4,319 0.8 4.1
The Grove at Troy, AL Troy, AL Troy University 192 514 6,795 7,209 0.4 4.1
The Grove at Waco, TX Waco, TX Baylor University 192 504 15,029 31,658 0.8 4.1
The Grove at Wichita, KS Wichita, KS Wichita State University 192 504 15,100 5,890 1.1 4.1
The Grove at Wichita Falls, TX Wichita Falls, TX Midwestern State University 192 504 6,180 6,910 1.2 4.1
The Grove at Murfreesboro, TN Murfreesboro, TN Middle Tennessee State University 186 504 26,442 7,018 0.8 3.1
The Grove at San Marcos, TX San Marcos, TX Texas State University 192 504 34,087 8,232 1.7 3.1
The Grove at Huntsville, TX Huntsville, TX Sam Houston State University 192 504 17,617 6,755 0.2 2.1
The Grove at Statesboro, GA Statesboro, GA Georgia Southern University 200 536 20,212 6,606 0.7 2.1
The Grove at Ames, IA Ames, IA Iowa State University 216 584 29,887 7,486 0.3 1.1
The Grove at Clarksville, TN Clarksville, TN Austin Peay State University 208 560 10,873 6,690 1.3 1.1
The Grove at Columbia, MO Columbia, MO University of Missouri 216 632 31,745 8,989 0.9 1.1
The Grove at Ft. Wayne, IN Ft. Wayne, IN Indiana University-Purdue University-Fort Wayne 204 540 14,326 7,273 1.1 1.1
Total - Wholly-Owned Operating 27 5,156 13,884 15,477 8,572 0.5 4.0
2012 Wholly-owned JV Acquisitions
The Grove at Moscow, ID Moscow, ID University of Idaho 192 504 12,312 5,856 0.5 3.1
The Grove at Valdosta, GA Valdosta, GA Valdosta State University 216 584 13,089 6,645 1.9 1.1
Total - 2012 Wholly-owned JV Acquisitions 2 408 1,088 12,701 6,251 1.2 2.1
Total - 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

59. Campus Crest Portfolio (cont’d)
Joint Venture & Development Portfolios
Distance to Campus
Property City Primary University # of Props Units Beds Enrollment '11/'12 Tuition (Median) Age
Joint Venture Operating Properties
The Grove at Lawrence, KS Lawrence, KS University of Kansas 172 500 25,448 8,732 1.6 3.1
The Grove at San Angelo, TX San Angelo, TX Angelo State University 192 504 7,084 9,848 0.3 3.1
The Grove at Conway, AR Conway, AR University of Central Arkansas 180 504 11,163 7,183 0.4 2.1
The Grove at Denton, TX Denton, TX University of North Texas 216 584 35,694 8,376 0.8 1.1
Total - Joint Venture Operating 4 760 2,092 19,847 8,535 0.6 2.4
Total Operating Portfolio (Excl. 2012 Deliveries) 33 6,324 17,064 15,849 8,422 0.5 3.7
2012 Deliveries
The Grove at Auburn, AL Auburn, AL Auburn University 216 600 25,469 7,900 0.0 0.1
The Grove at Flagstaff, AZ Flagstaff, AZ Northern Arizona University 216 584 17,761 7,364 0.2 0.1
The Grove at Nacogdoches, TX - Phase II Nacogdoches, TX Stephen F. Austin State University 64 160 12,903 7,344 0.4 5.1
The Grove at Orono, ME Orono, ME University of Maine 188 620 11,168 10,636 0.5 0.1
Wholly-Owned Deliveries 3 684 1,964 18,133 8,633 0.2 0.1
The Grove at Fayetteville, AR Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas 232 632 23,199 7,174 0.5 0.1
The Grove at Laramie, WY Laramie, WY University of Wyoming 224 612 10,568 4,125 0.3 0.1
The Grove at Stillwater, OK Stillwater, OK Oklahoma State University 206 612 22,411 7,108 0.8 0.1
Joint Venture Deliveries 3 662 1,856 18,726 6,136 0.5 0.1
Total - 2012 Deliveries 6 1,346 3,820 18,429 7,385 0.4 0.1
Total Operating Portfolio (Incl. 2012 Deliveries) 39 7,670 20,884 16,257 8,258 0.5 3.1
2013 Deliveries
The Grove at Ft. Collins Ft. Collins, CO Colorado State University 218 612 26,735 6,986 0.0 0.0
The Grove at Muncie Muncie, IN Ball State University 216 584 18,241 8,544 0.1 0.0
The Grove at Pullman Pullman, WA Washington State University 216 584 19,255 10,799 0.0 0.0
Wholly-Owned Deliveries 3 650 1,780 21,410 8,776 0.0 n/a
The Grove at Norman Norman, OK University of Oklahoma 224 600 23,850 7,125 0.6 0.0
The Grove at State College State College, PA Penn State University 216 584 45,628 15,984 0.8 0.0
The Grove at Indiana Indiana, PA Indiana University of Pennsylvania 224 600 15,132 8,352 0.6 0.0
Joint Venture Deliveries 3 664 1,784 28,203 10,487 0.6 n/a
Total - 2013 Deliveries 6 1,314 3,564 24,807 9,632 0.3 n/a
Total 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

60. Forward Looking Statements
This 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 predict
results or the actual effect of future events, actions, plans or strategies is inherently uncertain. Although the Company
believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, the
Company’s actual results and performance could differ materially from those set forth in, or implied by, the forward-looking
statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any of these forward-looking statements, which reflect the
Company’s views on this date. Furthermore, except as required by law, the Company is under no duty to, and does not
intend to, update any of our forward-looking statements after this date, whether as a result of new information, future
events or otherwise.
This presentation does not constitute, and may not be used in connection with, an offer or solicitation by anyone in any
jurisdiction in which such offer or solicitation is not permitted by law or in which the person making the offer or solicitation
is not qualified to do so or to any person to whom it is unlawful to make such offer or solicitation.
59