sv11za
As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 21, 2005
Registration No. 333-125549
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Amendment No. 1
To
Form S-11
FOR REGISTRATION UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE COMPANIES
American Campus Communities, Inc.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Governing
Instruments)
805 Las Cimas Parkway, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78746
(512) 732-1000
(Address, Including Zip Code and Telephone Number, Including
Area Code, of Registrants Principal Executive Offices)
William C. Bayless, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
805 Las Cimas Parkway, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78746
(512) 732-1000
(Name, Address, Including Zip Code and Telephone Number,
Including Area Code, of Agent for Service)
Copies to:
|
|
|
Bryan L. Goolsby
Toni Weinstein
Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 740-8000
Facsimile: (214) 740-8800 |
|
Edward F. Petrosky
J. Gerard Cummins
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 839-5300
Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 |
Approximate
date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon
as practicable after this Registration Statement becomes
effective.
If this
form is filed to register additional securities for an offering
pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the
following box and list the Securities Act registration statement
number of the earlier effective registration statement of the
same
offering. o
If this
form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following
box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of
the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
If this
form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following
box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of
the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
If
delivery of the prospectus is expected to be made pursuant to
Rule 434, please check the following
box. o
CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed Maximum |
|
|
Amount of |
Title of Each Class of |
|
|
Amount to Be |
|
|
Aggregate |
|
|
Registration |
Securities to Be Registered |
|
|
Registered |
|
|
Offering Price(1) |
|
|
Fee(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock, par value $.01 per share
|
|
|
3,910,000 |
|
|
$85,883,150 |
|
|
$10,109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Estimated pursuant to Rule 457(c) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, based upon the average of the high and low
sales prices of a share of common stock as reported on the New
York Stock Exchange on June 17, 2005. |
|
|
(2) |
A registration fee of $8,828 was previously paid in connection
with the filing of the registration statement on June 6,
2005. A fee of $1,281 has been paid in connection with the
filing of this Amendment No. 1. |
|
The
Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such
date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date
until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which
specifically states that this Registration Statement shall
thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or until this
Registration Statement shall become effective on such date as
the Securities and Exchange Commission, acting pursuant to said
Section 8(a), may determine.
The
information in this prospectus is not complete and may be
changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is
effective. The prospectus is not an offer to sell the securities
and it is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any
jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not
permitted.
|
Subject to
Completion, Dated June 21, 2005
PROSPECTUS
3,400,000 Shares
American Campus Communities, Inc.
Common Stock
We are one of the largest owners, managers and developers of
high quality student housing properties in the United States in
terms of beds owned, managed and developed. This is a public
offering, or Offering, of 3,400,000 shares of our common
stock. We will receive all of the cash proceeds from the sale of
these shares. Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol ACC. On June 17,
2005, the last reported sales price of our common stock on the
New York Stock Exchange was $21.97 per share. We intend to
elect to be taxed as a real estate investment trust, or REIT,
for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our
tax year ended December 31, 2004.
See Risk Factors beginning on page 18 for
certain risk factors relevant to an investment in our common
stock, including, among others:
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 31, 2005, our total consolidated indebtedness
was approximately $309.4 million (excluding unamortized
debt premiums). Our debt service obligations expose us to the
risk of default and reduce (or eliminate) cash resources that
are available to operate our business or pay distributions,
including those necessary to maintain our REIT qualification.
There is no limit on the amount of indebtedness that we may
incur except as provided by the covenants in our revolving
credit facility. |
|
|
|
Our results of operations are subject to annual re-leasing,
seasonality and other risks that are unique to the student
housing industry. |
|
|
|
|
We have been recently organized and have a limited operating
history. Our management has limited experience in running a
public company or in operating in accordance with the
requirements for qualification as a REIT. |
|
|
|
|
Provisions of our organizational documents limit the ownership
of our shares. |
|
|
|
If we fail to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes,
our distributions will not be deductible by us, reducing our
cash available for distribution to our stockholders. |
|
|
|
We may not be able to make distributions to our stockholders in
the future, and we may make distributions that include a return
of capital. |
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state
securities commission has approved or disapproved of these
securities or determined if this prospectus is truthful or
complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal
offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Share | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Public offering price
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Underwriting discount
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Proceeds, before expenses, to us
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
To the extent the underwriters sell more than
3,400,000 shares of our common stock, they will have an
overallotment option to purchase up to an additional
510,000 shares from us at the public offering price less
the underwriting discount.
The underwriters expect to deliver the shares on or
about ,
2005.
|
|
Citigroup |
Deutsche Bank Securities |
JPMorgan
The date of this prospectus is , 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
89 |
|
MANAGEMENT |
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
|
|
107 |
|
i
You should rely only on the information contained in this
document. We have not authorized anyone to provide you with any
additional or different information. This document may only be
used where it is legal to sell these securities. The information
in this document may only be accurate on the date of this
document.
ii
PROSPECTUS SUMMARY
You should read the following summary together with the more
detailed information regarding us and our historical and pro
forma financial statements appearing elsewhere in this
prospectus, including under the caption Risk
Factors. References in this prospectus to we,
our, us, our Company or like
terms when used in the present tense, prospectively or for
historical periods since August 17, 2004 (the date of the
consummation of the initial public offering, or IPO,
of our common stock) refer to American Campus Communities, Inc.,
a Maryland corporation, together with our consolidated
subsidiaries. These consolidated subsidiaries include American
Campus Communities Operating Partnership LP, a Maryland limited
partnership of which we are the parent of the general partner
and which we sometimes refer to in this prospectus as our
Operating Partnership, and American Campus
Communities Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of our Operating Partnership, which is our
taxable REIT subsidiary and which we sometimes refer to in this
prospectus as our TRS. References to the
Predecessor Entities, Predecessor
owners, predecessors, we,
our, us, our Company or like terms
when used for historical periods prior to August 17, 2004
refer to our predecessor entities, which were a combination of
real estate entities under common ownership and voting control
collectively doing business as American Campus Communities,
L.L.C. and Affiliated Student Housing Properties. Unless
otherwise indicated, the information contained in this
prospectus is as of March 31, 2005 and assumes that the
underwriters overallotment option has not been exercised
and the common stock to be sold in this Offering has been sold
at $21.97 per share, which was the last reported sales
price of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on
June 17, 2005.
Our Company
We are one of the largest owners, managers and developers of
high quality student housing properties in the United States in
terms of beds owned, managed and developed. As of March 31,
2005, we owned and/or managed 43 student communities consisting
of approximately 26,900 beds in approximately 9,700 units.
We are a fully integrated, self-managed and self-administered
equity REIT with expertise in the acquisition, design,
financing, development, construction management, leasing and
management of student housing properties.
As of March 31, 2005, our owned property portfolio
consisted of 24 high-quality student housing properties,
containing approximately 15,600 beds in approximately
5,200 units. We acquired 16 of these properties and
developed the remaining eight properties. We manage all 24 of
our owned properties. Nineteen of our 24 owned properties are
located off-campus in close proximity to 22 colleges and
universities in nine states, and five of these properties are
located on-campus, where we manage and participate in their
ownership and management through ground/facility leases with two
university systems. We refer to these five on-campus properties
as our on-campus participating properties. Our owned property
portfolio contains modern housing units, offers resort-style
amenities and is supported by a classic resident assistant
system and other student-oriented programming.
We are also one of the nations leaders in providing third
party services to colleges and universities for the management
and development of on-campus student housing. We manage 19
properties on a third party basis primarily for colleges,
universities and financial institutions. These third party
managed properties contain approximately 11,300 beds in
approximately 4,500 units. In addition, since 1996, we have
been awarded more than 30 on-campus development projects,
resulting in strong relationships with some of the nations
preeminent university systems.
We have driven innovation in the student housing industry,
establishing our company as a premier owner, manager and
developer in the sector. In 2004, we became the first publicly
traded REIT focused solely on student housing properties. Today,
operating as a fully integrated, self-managed and
self-administered equity REIT, our unique and singular focus has
not changed: Student housing is our core business.
Our principal executive offices are located at 805 Las Cimas
Parkway, Suite 400, Austin, Texas 78746. Our telephone
number at that location is (512) 732-1000. Our website is
located at
1
www.studenthousing.com or www.americancampuscommunities.com. The
information on our website is not part of this prospectus.
Recent Activities
Since our IPO in August of 2004, we have had substantial growth
activities.
We have acquired seven properties totaling 3,118 beds in
978 units for an aggregate purchase price of approximately
$120.2 million. In connection with these acquisitions, we
assumed approximately $47.2 million of mortgage debt. Each
of these acquisitions is described below.
In March 2005, we acquired an off-campus student housing
property (Exchange at Gainesville, to be renamed) consisting of
1,044 beds in 396 units, near the University of Florida
campus in Gainesville, Florida, for a purchase price of
$47.5 million. We entered into a fixed-rate mortgage loan
in the amount of $38.8 million in connection with this
acquisition.
In March 2005, we acquired an off-campus student housing
property (City Parc at Fry Street) consisting of 418 beds in
136 units, located near the University of North Texas in
Denton, Texas, for a purchase price of $19.2 million. We
assumed approximately $11.8 million of fixed-rate mortgage
debt in connection with this acquisition.
In February 2005, we acquired a portfolio of five off-campus
student housing properties (the Proctor Portfolio)
for a purchase price of approximately $53.5 million. Four
of the properties are located in Tallahassee, Florida and one
property is located in Gainesville, Florida. These five
communities contained 1,656 beds in 446 units. We assumed
approximately $35.4 million of fixed-rate mortgage debt in
connection with this acquisition.
|
|
|
Owned Development Activities |
With the commencement of the 2004/2005 academic year in late
August and early September, we completed the development of
three owned off-campus student housing properties at Temple
University, Cal State Fresno and Cal State San Bernardino.
These properties were placed into service with an opening
occupancy of 98%. Collectively they contained 1,635 beds in
457 units. On January 5, 2005, we sold the Cal State
San Bernardino community to the University upon exercise of
its purchase option for $28.3 million and recognized a gain
on sale of $5.9 million.
We are currently in the process of constructing one owned
off-campus property and are in pre-development of two additional
off-campus owned properties. We are also currently constructing
one owned on-campus participating property. We anticipate that
the total development cost relating to these activities will be
approximately $150.3 million. As of March 31, 2005, we
have incurred pre-development and development costs of
approximately $26.1 million in connection with these
properties, with the remaining development costs estimated at
$124.2 million. The activities are described below:
We acquired a land parcel near the State University of New
YorkBuffalo and commenced development of an owned
off-campus property containing 828 beds in 269 units. Total
development cost is estimated to be $36.1 million. This
property is currently in the final stages of construction and is
pre-leased to 100% occupancy for its upcoming opening in August
2005. As of March 31, 2005, the project was approximately
68% complete, and we anticipate incurring remaining development
costs of approximately $14.8 million.
We are in the later stages of design and pre-development on two
owned off-campus properties with total anticipated development
costs of approximately $97.2 million. One project is
located in Newark, New Jersey near the campuses of the New
Jersey Institute of Technology, Rutgers University and Essex
County Community College. We anticipate development costs of
this property to total approximately $62.3 million and plan
to own this property through a joint venture that we will
control with Titan Investments, a partner with whom we have
previously developed four off-campus student housing properties.
As of
2
March 31, 2005, we have incurred approximately
$0.5 million of pre-development costs related to this
project. The second property is located in close proximity to
Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, and we
estimate the total development costs of this property to be
approximately $34.9 million. Both developments are
currently progressing through their respective entitlement and
municipal approval processes and are contingent upon receiving
all necessary approvals. Depending upon the timeliness of these
approvals, we plan to commence construction in Summer of 2005
for an August 2006 completion or to commence construction in
Summer of 2006 for an August 2007 completion.
Our Cullen Oaks Phase II on-campus participating property,
located on the campus of the University of Houston, is currently
under construction with total development costs estimated to be
$17.0 million. The project is scheduled to be completed in
August 2005 in connection with the 2005/2006 academic year. As
of March 31, 2005, the project was approximately 23%
complete, and we anticipate incurring remaining development
costs of approximately $12.7 million.
|
|
|
Amended Revolving Credit Facility |
On June 17, 2005, we amended our three-year,
$75 million revolving credit facility to increase the size
of the facility to $100 million. KeyBank National
Association (an affiliate of KeyBanc Capital Markets, a division
of McDonald Investments Inc., which is an underwriter in this
Offering) is the administrative agent under the amended
facility. Citicorp North America, Inc. (an affiliate of
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which is a lead managing
underwriter in this Offering) and Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas (an affiliate of Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., which
is a lead managing underwriter in this Offering) are
co-syndication agents under the amended facility. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. (an affiliate of J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,
which is an underwriter in this Offering) is the documentation
agent under the amended facility. The amended facility may be
expanded by up to an additional $100 million upon the
satisfaction of certain conditions. The amended facility is
available to, among other things, fund future property
development, acquisitions and other working capital needs. Our
ability to borrow from time to time under the amended facility
is subject to certain conditions and the satisfaction of
specified financial covenants, which are more favorable to us
than those contained in the facility prior to amendment. The
amended facility also contains covenants that restrict our
ability to pay dividends or other distributions to our
stockholders unless certain tests are satisfied.
|
|
|
Senior Management Restructuring |
On April 28, 2005 we announced the following restructuring
of our senior management:
|
|
|
|
|
James C. Hopke, Jr. rejoined our Company and was appointed
as Executive Vice President and Chief Investment Officer; |
|
|
|
Brian B. Nickel, our former Executive Vice President, Chief
Investment Officer and Secretary, was appointed as Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary; |
|
|
|
Jonathan Graf, our former Vice President and Controller, was
promoted to Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and
Treasurer; |
|
|
|
Greg A. Dowell, our former Senior Vice President and Chief of
Operations, was promoted to Executive Vice President and Chief
of Operations; and |
|
|
|
Kim K. Voss, our former Assistant Controller, was promoted to
Vice President and Controller. |
In April 2005, Ronnie Macejewski resigned as Senior Vice
PresidentDevelopment and Construction and in May 2005,
Mark J. Hager resigned as Executive Vice President, Chief
Financial and Accounting Officer and Treasurer.
3
Competitive Strengths
We believe that we have the following competitive advantages:
|
|
|
|
|
Student housing is our core business. We have expertise
in the unique and specialized aspects of the student housing
industry and focus on student housing as our core business. We
are a fully integrated organization, which is capable of
conducting market analysis, administering the entitlement and
municipal approval process, coordinating product design,
securing financing, administering the development process and
providing construction management, leasing and property
management services. Since our inception in 1993, we have been
one of the most active companies in the sector as we have been
involved in the development, acquisition, ownership and/or
management of more than 62 student housing properties containing
more than 38,200 beds. |
|
|
|
|
One of the industrys most experienced teams.
Collectively throughout their individual careers, the seven
members of our senior management team have been involved in the
development, acquisition or management of more than 114 student
housing properties containing more than 73,500 beds at 78
colleges and universities. Our corporate team of student housing
professionals have participated in every functional aspect of
the ownership, acquisition, development and management of
student housing. Six corporate employees at the level of Vice
President or above, including our CEO, began their careers in
student housing as resident assistants while in college,
providing us with a comprehensive understanding of the
operational aspects of the student housing business. We believe
that this history of experience provides a base of knowledge
that has facilitated building a company with substantial
operating and development expertise in the student housing
industry. |
|
|
|
|
High quality student housing properties. As of
March 31, 2005, our properties had an average age of only
4.7 years. Our properties are located in close proximity
to, and in the case of our on-campus participating properties on
the grounds of, major colleges and universities. Our typical
units include private bedrooms, private or semi-private
bathrooms, living rooms and full kitchens with modern
appliances. Our properties typically offer extensive amenities
and services, including swimming pools, basketball, sand
volleyball and/or tennis courts and clubhouses with fitness
centers, recreational rooms and computer labs, in an
academically oriented environment that parents appreciate. Each
of our properties is managed and cared for by our trained
on-site staff managers, maintenance, business personnel
and resident assistants. |
|
|
|
Extensive network of university and college
relationships. This network provides us with acquisition,
development and management opportunities. Our clients have
included some the nations most prominent systems of higher
education, including the State University of New York System,
the University of California System, the Texas A&M
University System, the Texas State University System, the
University of Georgia System, the University of North Carolina
System, the Purdue University System, the University of Colorado
System and the Arizona State University System. |
|
|
|
Industry innovators. With nearly $1 billion of
development completed or in progress and in excess of
$300 million of properties acquired over the last decade,
we have led the industry in evolving student housing in the
areas of product design concepts, site planning, unit plans and
amenity offerings. We have also developed and implemented
specialized student housing investment and operating systems and
have created a proprietary lease administration and marketing
software customized for student housing that enables us to
quickly identify and respond to market changes and trends. |
Summary Risk Factors
You should carefully consider the following important risks:
|
|
|
|
|
Our results of operations are subject to an annual leasing
cycle, short lease-up period, seasonal cash flows, changing
university admission and housing policies and other risks
inherent in the |
4
|
|
|
|
|
student housing industry. We generally lease our owned
properties under 12-month leases, and in certain cases, under
ten-month, nine-month or shorter-term semester leases. As a
result, we may experience significantly reduced cash flows
during the summer months at properties leased under leases
having terms shorter than 12 months. Furthermore, all of
our properties must be entirely re-leased each year, exposing us
to increased leasing risk. Student housing properties are also
typically leased during a limited leasing season that usually
begins in January and ends in August of each year. We are
therefore highly dependent on the effectiveness of our marketing
and leasing efforts and personnel during this season. |
|
|
|
We face significant competition from university-owned on-campus
student housing, from other off-campus student housing
properties and from traditional multifamily housing located
within close proximity to universities. On-campus student
housing has certain inherent advantages over off-campus student
housing in terms of physical proximity to the university campus
and integration of on-campus facilities into the academic
community. Colleges and universities can generally avoid real
estate taxes and borrow funds at lower interest rates than us
and other private sector operators. We also compete with
national and regional owner-operators of off-campus student
housing in a number of markets as well as with smaller local
owner-operators. |
|
|
|
|
As of March 31, 2005, our total consolidated indebtedness
was approximately $309.4 million (excluding unamortized
debt premiums). Our debt service obligations expose us to the
risk of default and reduce (or eliminate) cash resources that
are available to operate our business or pay distributions,
including those necessary to maintain our REIT qualification.
There is no limit on the amount of indebtedness that we may
incur except as provided by the covenants in our revolving
credit facility. We expect to incur additional indebtedness
under our revolving credit facility to fund future property
development and acquisitions and other working capital needs,
subject to certain conditions and the satisfaction of specified
financial covenants. Our level of debt and the limitations
imposed on us by our debt agreements could have significant
adverse consequences. |
|
|
|
|
|
Our future growth will be dependent upon our ability to
successfully develop, acquire and manage new properties. As we
develop and acquire additional properties, we will be subject to
risks associated with managing new properties, including
lease-up and integration risks. Newly developed and recently
acquired properties may not perform as expected and newly
acquired properties may have characteristics or deficiencies
unknown to us at the time of acquisition. There can be no
assurance that future acquisition and development opportunities
will be available to us on terms that meet our investment
criteria or that we will be successful in capitalizing on such
opportunities. Our ability to capitalize on such opportunities
will be largely dependent upon external sources of capital that
may not be available to us on favorable terms, or at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
We have been recently organized and have a limited operating
history. In addition, all of our properties have been acquired
or developed by us or our predecessors within the past nine
years and have limited operating histories under current
management. Our management has limited experience in running a
public company or in operating in accordance with the
requirements for qualification as a REIT. |
|
|
|
|
Provisions of our charter limit the ownership of our shares. Our
charter provides that, subject to certain exceptions, no person
or entity may beneficially own, or be deemed to own by virtue of
certain constructive ownership provisions, more than 9.8% (by
value or by number of shares, whichever is more restrictive) of
the outstanding shares of our common stock or more than 9.8% by
value of all our outstanding shares, including both common and
preferred stock. We refer to this restriction as our
ownership limit. Our charter, however, requires
exceptions to be made to this limitation if our board of
directors determines that such exceptions will not jeopardize
our tax status as a REIT. This ownership limit could delay,
defer or prevent a change of control or other transaction that
might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise
be in the best interest of our stockholders. |
5
|
|
|
|
|
In order to qualify as a REIT, we are required under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the
Code, to distribute annually at least 90% of our
REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends
paid deduction and excluding any net capital gain. Our TRS, or
taxable REIT subsidiary, may, in its discretion,
retain any income it generates net of any tax liability it
incurs on that income without affecting the 90% distribution
requirements to which we are subject as a REIT. Net income of
our TRS will be included in REIT taxable income, and will
increase the amount required to be distributed, only if such
amounts are paid out as a dividend by our TRS. In addition, we
will be subject to income tax at regular corporate rates to the
extent that we distribute less than 100% of our net taxable
income, including any net capital gains. Because of these
distribution requirements, we may not be able to fund future
capital needs, including any necessary acquisition financing,
from operating cash flow. Consequently, we will be compelled to
rely on third party sources to fund our capital needs. We may
not be able to obtain this financing on favorable terms or at
all. Any additional indebtedness that we incur will increase our
leverage. If we cannot obtain capital from third party sources,
we may not be able to acquire or develop properties when
strategic opportunities exist, satisfy our debt service
obligations or make the cash distributions to our stockholders,
including those necessary to qualify as a REIT. |
|
|
|
To qualify as a REIT, we are required to comply with highly
technical and complex provisions of the Code. Failure to qualify
as a REIT would likely subject us to higher tax expenses and
reduce or eliminate cash available for distribution to our
stockholders. |
|
|
|
The operations of our on-campus participating properties and our
third party services are conducted through our TRS. The income
from these operations is subject to regular federal income
taxation and state and local income taxation where applicable,
thus reducing the amount of cash available for distribution to
our stockholders. |
|
|
|
We may not be able to make distributions to our stockholders in
the future, and we may make distributions that include a return
of capital. |
Our Business and Growth Strategies
Our primary business objectives are to maximize long-term
stockholder value and cash flow available for distribution to
our stockholders. We intend to achieve these objectives by:
|
|
|
|
|
developing and acquiring owned off-campus student housing
communities that meet our focused investment criteria; |
|
|
|
maximizing the profitability of our owned and third-party
managed properties through proactive marketing, management and
asset preservation strategies; and |
|
|
|
continuing to grow our third-party development and management
services businesses to generate cash flow and build our national
reputation among colleges and universities. |
The following summarizes the key aspects of our strategies:
|
|
|
Follow a Disciplined Off-Campus Acquisition and
Development Strategy |
Our investment criteria are focused on acquiring and developing
high quality, modern student housing properties that are located
in close proximity to major colleges and universities. We target
properties that offer pedestrian, bicycle or university bus
service access to their respective campuses. We acquire and
develop properties that feature a differentiated product
offering and are located in student housing submarkets with
barriers to entry. Our focused investment criteria coupled with
our superior operational capabilities provide an opportunity to
increase the value and cash flow of our properties. We believe
that our reputation and close relationship with colleges and
universities also gives us an advantage in sourcing acquisition
and development opportunities, obtaining municipal approvals and
community support for our development projects, and in creating
marketing or operational advantages.
6
We consider many factors when determining whether we should
enter a market and, if so, whether through acquisition or
development and how to position our property within the market,
including the following:
Property Factors
|
|
|
|
|
Proximity to campus |
|
|
|
Unit mix compared to competition |
|
|
|
Marketability of floor plans compared to competition |
|
|
|
Quality and marketability of amenity offering compared to
competition |
|
|
|
Total housing cost to residents compared to each direct
competitor |
|
|
|
Age of the structure |
|
|
|
Quality of construction and impact related to ongoing capital
expenditures |
|
|
|
Quality of furniture, fixtures and equipment and impact on
ongoing capital expenditures |
|
|
|
Condition and extraordinary cost impacts related to mechanical
and physical plant systems |
|
|
|
Operational and marketing inefficiencies and identification of
areas for improvement |
|
|
|
Internet, communications and entertainment features incorporated
into the structure |
|
|
|
Reputation of the property and competitor properties among
students and key university offices |
University Factors
|
|
|
|
|
Size of college or university |
|
|
|
Enrollment characteristics and growth projections |
|
|
|
Percent of students housed on-campus |
|
|
|
On-campus housing requirements and policies |
|
|
|
On-campus housing products and pricing |
|
|
|
Development plans for future housing |
|
|
|
Universitys admission policy and expected changes to such
policies |
|
|
|
Presence of university services/programs that enable
establishing formal relationships |
Market Factors
|
|
|
|
|
Fundamentals of the overall local housing market |
|
|
|
Fundamentals of student housing submarkets |
|
|
|
Nature of direct competitors and their product offering |
|
|
|
Impact of greater housing market on each student housing
submarket |
|
|
|
Barriers to entry in each student housing submarket |
|
|
|
Student preferences related to each student housing submarket |
|
|
|
Planned or potential future student housing development |
After we identify a potential student housing acquisition or
development opportunity, a team consisting of in-house personnel
and third parties will conduct detailed due diligence to assess
the potential opportunity.
Given our significant development and acquisition activities
over the last decade, we have developed active relationships
with universities, developers, owners, lenders and brokers of
student housing properties that allow us to identify and
capitalize on acquisition and development opportunities. As a
result, we have
7
generated a proprietary database of contacts and properties that
assist us in identifying and evaluating acquisition and
development opportunities. Through our experienced development
staff and our relationship with certain developers with whom we
have previously developed off-campus student housing properties,
we will continue to identify and acquire development sites in
close proximity to colleges and universities that permit us to
develop unique properties that offer a competitive advantage. We
will also continue to benefit from opportunities derived from
our extensive network with colleges and universities.
|
|
|
Maximize Property-Level Profitability |
We seek to maximize property-level profitability by maximizing
occupancy and revenue along with the implementation of prudent
cost control systems. Our experienced and trained on-site
management personnel administer the timely execution of our
marketing, management and maintenance plans with corporate
support and supervision in all functional areas.
Some of our specific expense control initiatives include:
|
|
|
|
|
establishing internal controls and procedures for cost control
consistently throughout our communities; |
|
|
|
appropriately staffing our properties at the site-level,
minimizing multiple layers of management and increasing
effectiveness; |
|
|
|
negotiating utility and service-level pricing arrangements with
national and regional vendors and requiring corporate-level
approval of service agreements for each community; and |
|
|
|
conducting analysis of the costs and effectiveness of each of
our marketing programs via our proprietary LAMS system. |
|
|
|
Utilize our Proprietary Marketing Systems |
We believe we have developed the industrys only
specialized, fully integrated leasing administration and
marketing software program, which we call LAMS. We utilize LAMS
to maximize our revenue and improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of our marketing and lease administration process.
Through LAMS, each of our properties ongoing marketing and
leasing efforts are supervised at the corporate office on a real
time basis. Among other things, LAMS provides:
|
|
|
|
|
|
a fully integrated prospect tracking and follow-up system.
Prospect information from all types of inquirieswalk-in,
telephone, web site/email, or faxis recorded and entered
into the LAMS database, and an aggressive, fully-automated
follow-up and tracking program is then implemented, with LAMS
generating follow-up labels and electronic communications and
disseminating marketing messages. |
|
|
|
|
a built-in marketing effectiveness program to measure the
success of our marketing efforts on a real time basis. LAMS
generates a weekly traffic analysis that shows the quantity of
each type of inquiry received for that period as well as the
marketing medium that generated each piece of traffic. In
addition, LAMS generates a period-to-period comparative traffic
and leasing analysis that allows us to compare the pace of the
current years traffic and leasing activity to that of
previous years. This enables us to track the effectiveness of
each marketing program being utilized and to respond accordingly. |
|
|
|
a real-time monitor of lease closings and leasing terms. LAMS
automatically generates closing reports allowing us to measure
the staffs closing ratios. The closing ratios are
calculated by LAMS on an individual basis so that we may better
evaluate performance and optimize our staffing. LAMS generates
application and leasing status reports that detail the current
period and year-to-date status of applications and leasing
broken down by type of accommodation. This enables us to quickly
identify potential problems related to pricing and/or
desirability of our various types of accommodations and to
respond accordingly. |
8
|
|
|
|
|
an automated lease generation system. Each propertys lease
term and rental rate information is set up in LAMS by authorized
corporate staff. This enables the corporate office to maintain
tight controls on pricing changes and special promotions. LAMS
generates each resident lease, eliminating the potential for
manual errors of our on-site staff. |
Our Properties
Our properties generally are modern facilities, and amenities at
most of our properties include a swimming pool, basketball
courts and a large community center featuring a fitness center,
computer center, tanning beds, study areas, and a recreation
room with billiards and other games. Some properties also have a
jacuzzi/hot tub, volleyball courts, tennis courts and in-unit
washers and dryers. Lease terms are generally 12 months at
our off-campus properties and 9 months at our on-campus
participating properties. As of March 31, 2005, the average
age of our properties was 4.7 years.
The following table presents certain information about our owned
property portfolio as of March 31, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
|
|
|
Primary | |
|
Occupancy | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired/ |
|
|
|
University | |
|
Rates | |
|
|
|
|
Property |
|
Developed |
|
Location | |
|
Served | |
|
(1) | |
|
Units | |
|
Beds | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Off-campus properties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Commons On Apache
|
|
1999 |
|
|
Tempe, AZ |
|
|
Arizona State University Main Campus |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
444 |
|
2. The Village at Blacksburg
|
|
2000 |
|
|
Blacksburg, VA |
|
|
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |
|
|
98.6 |
% |
|
|
288 |
|
|
|
1,056 |
|
3. The Village on University
|
|
1999 |
|
|
Tempe, AZ |
|
|
Arizona State University Main Campus |
|
|
99.1 |
% |
|
|
288 |
|
|
|
918 |
|
4. River Club Apartments
|
|
1999 |
|
|
Athens, GA |
|
|
The University of Georgia Athens |
|
|
95.5 |
% |
|
|
266 |
|
|
|
794 |
|
5. River Walk Townhomes
|
|
1999 |
|
|
Athens, GA |
|
|
The University of Georgia Athens |
|
|
97.1 |
% |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
340 |
|
6. The Callaway House(2)
|
|
2001 |
|
|
College Station, TX |
|
|
Texas A&M University |
|
|
101.3 |
% |
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
538 |
|
7. The Village at Alafaya Club
|
|
2000 |
|
|
Orlando, FL |
|
|
The University of Central Florida |
|
|
97.4 |
% |
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
840 |
|
8. The Village at Science Drive
|
|
2001 |
|
|
Orlando, FL |
|
|
The University of Central Florida |
|
|
99.3 |
% |
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
732 |
|
9. University Village at Boulder Creek
|
|
2002 |
|
|
Boulder, CO |
|
|
The University of Colorado at Boulder |
|
|
87.7 |
% |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
309 |
|
10. University Village at Fresno
|
|
2004 |
|
|
Fresno, CA |
|
|
California State University, Fresno |
|
|
98.8 |
% |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
406 |
|
11. University Village at TU
|
|
2004 |
|
|
Philadelphia, PA |
|
|
|
Temple University |
|
|
|
98.8 |
% |
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
749 |
|
12. University Village at Sweet Home(3)
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Amherst, NY |
|
|
State University of New York Buffalo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
269 |
|
|
|
828 |
|
13. University Club Tallahassee
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Tallahassee, FL |
|
|
Florida State University |
|
|
93.4 |
% |
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
608 |
|
14. The Grove at University Club
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Tallahassee, FL |
|
|
Florida State University |
|
|
98.4 |
% |
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
128 |
|
15. College Club Tallahassee
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Tallahassee, FL |
|
|
Florida A&M University |
|
|
92.4 |
% |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
384 |
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
|
|
|
Primary | |
|
Occupancy | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired/ |
|
|
|
University | |
|
Rates | |
|
|
|
|
Property |
|
Developed |
|
Location | |
|
Served | |
|
(1) | |
|
Units | |
|
Beds | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
16. The Greens at College Club
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Tallahassee, FL |
|
|
Florida A&M University |
|
|
96.9 |
% |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
17. University Club Gainesville
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Gainesville, FL |
|
|
University of Florida |
|
|
98.9 |
% |
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
376 |
|
18. City Parc at Fry Street
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Denton, TX |
|
|
University of North Texas |
|
|
94.7 |
% |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
19. Exchange at Gainesville (to be renamed)
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Gainesville, FL |
|
|
University of Florida |
|
|
95.6 |
% |
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
1,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total off-campus properties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97.2 |
% |
|
|
3,300 |
|
|
|
11,072 |
|
On-campus participating properties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20. University VillagePVAMU
|
|
1996/ 97/98 |
|
|
Prairie View, TX |
|
|
Prairie View A&M University |
|
|
93.0 |
% |
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
1,920 |
|
21. University CollegePVAMU
|
|
2000/ 2003 |
|
|
Prairie View, TX |
|
|
Prairie View A&M University |
|
|
95.0 |
% |
|
|
756 |
|
|
|
1,470 |
|
22. University VillageTAMIU
|
|
1997 |
|
|
Laredo, TX |
|
|
Texas A&M International University |
|
|
70.2 |
% |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
252 |
|
23. Cullen Oaks Phase I
|
|
2001 |
|
|
Houston, TX |
|
|
The University of Houston |
|
|
99.6 |
% |
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
525 |
|
24. Cullen Oaks Phase II(3)
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Houston, TX |
|
|
The University of Houston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
354 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total on-campus participating properties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93.1 |
% |
|
|
1,863 |
|
|
|
4,521 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totalall properties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96.0 |
% |
|
|
5,163 |
|
|
|
15,593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Occupancy rates are calculated as of March 31, 2005.
Occupancy is based on the number of total occupied beds
(including beds occupied by staff) divided by total beds. |
|
(2) |
Also has a food service facility. |
|
(3) |
Currently under development with a scheduled completion date of
August 2005. |
10
The following table sets forth certain comparative information
as of May 27, 2005 and May 28, 2004 (the last Friday
in May for each period reported) regarding the leasing status of
our owned off-campus properties for the 2005/2006 and 2004/2005
academic years, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applications | |
|
% of | |
|
Applications | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Leases | |
|
Rentable | |
|
and Leases | |
|
Variance to | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
as of | |
|
Beds as of | |
|
as of | |
|
Prior Year | |
|
|
|
Total | |
|
|
May 27, | |
|
May 27, | |
|
May 28, | |
|
| |
|
Rentable | |
|
Design | |
Applications and Leases |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
Beds | |
|
% | |
|
Beds(1) | |
|
Beds | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Commons of Apache
|
|
|
444 |
|
|
|
100.0% |
|
|
|
444 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
444 |
|
|
|
444 |
|
The Village at Blacksburg
|
|
|
1,034 |
|
|
|
98.7% |
|
|
|
1,030 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
% |
|
|
1,048 |
|
|
|
1,056 |
|
The Village on University
|
|
|
515 |
|
|
|
56.7% |
|
|
|
656 |
|
|
|
(141 |
) |
|
|
(21.5 |
)% |
|
|
909 |
|
|
|
918 |
|
River Club Apartments
|
|
|
719 |
|
|
|
92.8% |
|
|
|
543 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
32.4 |
% |
|
|
775 |
|
|
|
794 |
|
River Walk Townhomes
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
88.9% |
|
|
|
316 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(6.3 |
)% |
|
|
333 |
|
|
|
340 |
|
The Callaway House
|
|
|
642 |
|
|
|
121.8% |
|
|
|
569 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
12.8 |
% |
|
|
527 |
|
|
|
538 |
|
The Village at Alafaya Club
|
|
|
581 |
|
|
|
70.1% |
|
|
|
586 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(0.9 |
)% |
|
|
829 |
|
|
|
840 |
|
The Village at Science Drive
|
|
|
717 |
|
|
|
99.3% |
|
|
|
718 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(0.1 |
)% |
|
|
722 |
|
|
|
732 |
|
University Village at Boulder Creek
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
56.2% |
|
|
|
218 |
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
(22.9 |
)% |
|
|
299 |
|
|
|
309 |
|
University Village Fresno
|
|
|
336 |
|
|
|
84.8% |
|
|
|
218 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
54.1 |
% |
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
406 |
|
University Village at TU
|
|
|
728 |
|
|
|
99.3% |
|
|
|
734 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(0.8 |
)% |
|
|
733 |
|
|
|
749 |
|
University Village at Sweet Home
|
|
|
835 |
|
|
|
102.2% |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
817 |
|
|
|
828 |
|
University Club Tallahassee(2)
|
|
|
744 |
|
|
|
102.5% |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
726 |
|
|
|
736 |
|
College Club Tallahassee(3)
|
|
|
392 |
|
|
|
73.1% |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
536 |
|
|
|
544 |
|
University Club Gainesville
|
|
|
267 |
|
|
|
71.8% |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
372 |
|
|
|
376 |
|
City Parc at Fry Street
|
|
|
196 |
|
|
|
47.6% |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
412 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
Exchange at Gainesville (to be renamed)
|
|
|
949 |
|
|
|
92.0% |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
1,032 |
|
|
|
1,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,910 |
|
|
|
11,072 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Rentable Beds exclude beds needed for on-site staff and/or model
units. |
|
(2) |
For lease administration purposes, University Club Tallahassee
and the Grove at University Club are reported combined. |
|
(3) |
For lease administration purposes, College Club Tallahassee and
the Greens at College Club are reported combined. |
Third Party Services
We are one of the nations leaders in the third party
development and management of on-campus housing, which has
allowed us to develop key relationships with colleges and
universities. These relationships, and the corresponding
national reputation that we have developed in this portion of
our business, benefits us when developing and managing our owned
off-campus properties. The revenues we earn from our third party
services comprised approximately 13% of our 2004 revenues as
compared to approximately 16% of our 2003 revenues. We believe
that these services continue to provide synergies with respect
to our ability to identify, acquire or develop, and successfully
operate, student housing properties. These services are
conducted through our TRS and are described below.
Development Services. We provide development and
construction management services to third parties that range
from short-term consulting projects to longer-term full-scale
development and construction management projects. We typically
provide these services to colleges and universities seeking to
modernize their on-campus student housing properties. They look
to us to bring our student housing experience and expertise to
ensure they develop marketable, functional and financially
sustainable facilities. Educational institutions usually seek to
build housing that will enhance their recruitment and retention
of students while facilitating an academically-oriented
environment. Most of these development service contracts are
awarded via a competitive request for proposal, or RFP process,
that qualifies developers based on their
11
overall ability to provide specialized student housing design,
development, construction management, financial structuring and
property management services. As of March 31, 2005, we had
five third party projects in pre-development or under
construction with a total contractual fee amount of
approximately $5.9 million, of which approximately
$5.1 million is to be earned and recognized in the
remainder of 2005 and 2006.
Property Management Services. We enter into third party
management contracts pursuant to which we are typically
responsible for all aspects of a propertys operations,
including marketing, leasing administration, facilities
maintenance, business administration, accounts payable, accounts
receivable, financial reporting, capital projects and residence
life student development. As of March 31, 2005, we provided
third party management services for 19 student housing
properties that represented approximately 11,300 beds in
approximately 4,500 units. We developed 13 of these
properties. We provide these services pursuant to multi-year
management agreements that generally range between two and five
years.
12
Our Organization
The following diagram depicts our ownership structure and the
ownership structure of our Operating Partnership and TRS as of
the date of this prospectus:
|
|
(1) |
Includes a 0.1% interest held by American Campus Communities
Holdings LLC, which is the general partner of our Operating
Partnership. |
|
|
(2) |
Profits interest units, or PIUs, represent limited partnership
interests in the Operating Partnership, which, upon consummation
of the Offering, will become ordinary units exchangeable for
cash or, at the option of the Operating Partnership, for shares
of our common stock on a one-for-one basis. |
|
Distribution Policy
We are required to distribute 90% of our REIT taxable income,
excluding capital gains, on an annual basis to qualify as a REIT
for federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, we intend to make,
but are not contractually bound to make, regular quarterly
distributions to common stockholders and PIU holders. All such
distributions are at the discretion of our board of directors.
We may be required to use borrowings under our credit facility,
if necessary and to the extent permitted thereunder, to meet
REIT distribution requirements and qualify as a REIT and
otherwise fund the remaining amounts of any distributions. The
13
board of directors considers market factors and our performance
in addition to REIT requirements in determining distribution
levels.
On May 11, 2005, we declared a distribution per share of
common stock of $0.3375, which was paid on May 31, 2005 to
all common stockholders of record as of May 19, 2005. At
the same time, we paid an equivalent amount per unit to holders
of PIUs and restricted stock awards. These distributions equate
to an annualized amount of $1.35 per share and represent a
6.1% yield based on the June 17, 2005 closing price of
$21.97 per share.
Our Tax Status
We intend to elect to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856
through 860 of the Code, commencing with our taxable year ended
December 31, 2004. We believe that our organization and
method of operation will enable us to meet the requirements for
qualification and taxation as a REIT for federal income tax
purposes. To maintain REIT status, we must meet a number of
organizational and operational requirements, including a
requirement that we annually distribute at least 90% of our REIT
taxable income to our stockholders. As a REIT, we generally are
not subject to federal income tax on REIT taxable income we
currently distribute to our stockholders. If we fail to qualify
as a REIT in any taxable year, we will be subject to federal
income tax at regular corporate rates. Even if we qualify for
taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to some federal, state and
local taxes on our income or property and the income of our TRS
will be subject to taxation at normal corporate rates and state
and local income tax where applicable. Further, unlike dividends
received from a corporation that is not a REIT, our
distributions to individual stockholders generally will not be
eligible for the recent lower tax rate on dividends except in
limited situations.
Summary Historical and Pro Forma Selected Financial Data
The following tables set forth our summary historical selected
financial and operating data on a consolidated historical basis
for us and on a combined historical basis for our Predecessor
Entities. Results for the year ended December 31, 2004
represent the combined historical data for our Predecessor
Entities for the period from January 1, 2004 to
August 16, 2004 as well as our consolidated results for the
period from August 17, 2004 to December 31, 2004. Our
consolidated results reflect our post-IPO structure as a REIT,
including the operations of the TRS, which was not present in
the operations of our Predecessor Entities. The combined
historical financial information for our Predecessor Entities
includes:
|
|
|
|
|
the development and management service operations and real
estate operations of American Campus Communities, L.L.C. (one of
the Predecessor Entities); |
|
|
|
the real estate operations of RAP Student Housing Properties,
L.L.C. (RAP SHP) and its subsidiaries (including The
Village at Riverside, which we ceased owning after the
completion of the IPO, and Coyote Village, which was transferred
to Weatherford College in April 2004); and |
|
|
|
the joint venture properties and operations of American
CampusTitan, LLC and American CampusTitan II,
LLC. |
You should read the following summary financial data in
conjunction with the consolidated and combined historical
financial statements and the related notes and with
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations, which are included
elsewhere in this prospectus.
Our unaudited historical consolidated balance sheet information
as of March 31, 2005 and consolidated and combined
statements of operations for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 and 2004 are derived from our unaudited
historical combined financial statements, which we believe
include all adjustments (consisting of only normal recurring
adjustments) necessary to present fairly the information set
forth therein. Our results of operations for the interim period
ended March 31, 2005 are not necessarily indicative of the
results to be obtained for the full fiscal year.
14
The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated and combined
statements of operations for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 and for the year ended December 31,
2004 are presented as if we had acquired Exchange at Gainesville
(acquired March 2005), City Parc at Fry Street (acquired March
2005) and the five-property Proctor Portfolio (acquired February
2005) as of January 1, 2004. It was also assumed that our
IPO transactions all had occurred as of January 1, 2004.
The pro forma adjustments include the related repayment of
certain debt and the acquisition of minority ownership of
certain assets. All such transactions are reflected on our
March 31, 2005 consolidated balance sheet, which is
included elsewhere in this prospectus.
The following summary unaudited financial data should be read
together with the pro forma condensed consolidated and combined
statements of operations and our historical financial statements
and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. The pro
forma condensed consolidated and combined statements of
operations are unaudited and are not necessarily indicative of
what the actual results of operations would have been had we
acquired the properties or consummated the IPO as of
January 1, 2004, nor do they purport to represent the
results of our operations for future periods. While such
unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated and combined
financial statements are based on adjustments that we deem
appropriate and that were factually supported based on currently
available data, the pro forma information may not be indicative
of what actual results would have been, nor does this
information present our financial results or condition for
future periods.
Statements of Operations Information:
(in thousands, except for share and per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, | |
|
Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Historical | |
|
|
|
Historical | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
| |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
19,541 |
|
|
$ |
15,352 |
|
|
$ |
22,325 |
|
|
$ |
60,823 |
|
|
$ |
57,136 |
|
|
$ |
52,131 |
|
|
$ |
76,623 |
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
2,311 |
|
|
|
1,585 |
|
|
|
2,646 |
|
|
|
(1,572 |
) |
|
|
(967 |
) |
|
|
(2,753 |
) |
|
|
(1,785 |
) |
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) income attributable to discontinued operations
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (loss) from disposition of real estate
|
|
|
5,883 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
8,192 |
|
|
|
1,530 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,339 |
) |
|
|
(944 |
) |
|
|
(2,139 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Per share and distribution data:(1) |
Income per diluted share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(.14 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations
|
|
|
0.46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
0.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash distributions declared per share/unit
|
|
|
0.3375 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1651 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash distributions declared
|
|
|
4,277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
Balance Sheet Data:
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of | |
|
As of December 31, | |
|
|
March 31, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
486,487 |
|
|
$ |
367,628 |
|
|
$ |
330,566 |
|
|
$ |
307,658 |
|
Debt
|
|
|
314,385 |
|
|
|
201,014 |
|
|
|
267,518 |
|
|
|
249,706 |
|
Stockholders and Predecessor Entities owners
equity(2)
|
|
|
141,380 |
|
|
|
138,229 |
|
|
|
27,658 |
|
|
|
35,526 |
|
|
Selected Owned Property Information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned properties
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
Units
|
|
|
5,163 |
|
|
|
4,317 |
|
|
|
3,567 |
|
|
|
3,459 |
|
|
Beds
|
|
|
15,593 |
|
|
|
12,955 |
|
|
|
10,546 |
|
|
|
10,336 |
|
|
Occupancy
|
|
|
96.0 |
% |
|
|
97.1 |
% |
|
|
91.5 |
% |
|
|
91.0 |
% |
Cash flow information:
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended | |
|
|
|
|
March 31, | |
|
Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$ |
5,713 |
|
|
$ |
5,237 |
|
|
$ |
17,293 |
|
|
$ |
6,862 |
|
|
$ |
7,647 |
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(58,853 |
) |
|
|
(19,213 |
) |
|
|
(63,621 |
) |
|
|
(33,738 |
) |
|
|
(21,678 |
) |
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
55,515 |
|
|
|
13,004 |
|
|
|
45,151 |
|
|
|
21,537 |
|
|
|
11,646 |
|
|
Funds from operations (FFO):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
8,192 |
|
|
$ |
1,530 |
|
|
$ |
(1,339 |
) |
|
$ |
(944 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,139 |
) |
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
(Gain) loss from disposition of real estate
|
|
|
(5,883 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(295 |
) |
|
Real estate related depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
3,326 |
|
|
|
2,277 |
|
|
|
10,009 |
|
|
|
8,937 |
|
|
|
8,233 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funds from operations(3)(4)
|
|
$ |
5,722 |
|
|
$ |
3,786 |
|
|
$ |
8,609 |
|
|
$ |
7,961 |
|
|
$ |
5,769 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Represents per share information and cash distributions declared
during the period from August 17, 2004 through
March 31, 2005. |
|
(2) |
Information as of March 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004
reflects our stockholders equity as a result of the IPO
while previous years reflect the equity of the owners of our
Predecessor Entities. |
|
(3) |
As defined by the National Association of Real Estate Investment
Trusts or NAREIT, funds from operations or FFO represents income
(loss) before allocation to minority interest (computed in
accordance with GAAP), excluding gains (or losses) from sales of
property, plus real estate related depreciation and amortization
(excluding amortization of loan origination costs) and after
adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures.
We present FFO because we consider it an important supplemental
measure of our operating performance and believe it is
frequently used by securities analysts, investors and other
interested parties in the evaluation of REITs, many of which
present FFO when reporting their results. FFO is intended to
exclude GAAP historical cost depreciation and amortization of
real estate and related assets, which assumes that the value of
real estate diminishes ratably over time. Historically, however,
real estate values have risen or fallen with market conditions.
Because FFO excludes depreciation and amortization unique to
real estate, gains and losses from property dispositions and
extraordinary items, it provides a performance measure that,
when compared year over year, reflects the impact to operations
from trends in occupancy rates, rental rates, operating costs,
development activities and interest costs, providing perspective
not immediately apparent from net income. |
|
|
|
We compute FFO in accordance with standards established by the
Board of Governors of NAREIT in its March 1995 White Paper (as
amended in November 1999 and April 2002), which may differ from
the methodology for calculating FFO utilized by other equity
REITs and, accordingly, may not be comparable to such other
REITs. Further, FFO does not represent amounts available for
managements discretionary use because of needed capital
replacement or expansion, debt service obligations or other
commitments and uncertainties. FFO should not be considered as
an alternative to net income (loss) (computed in accordance with
GAAP) as an indicator of our financial performance or to cash
flow from operating activities (computed in accordance with
GAAP) as an |
16
|
|
|
indicator of our liquidity, nor is it indicative of funds
available to fund our cash needs, including our ability to pay
dividends or make distributions. |
|
|
(4) |
When considering our FFO, we believe it is also a meaningful
measure of our performance to exclude certain revenues and
expenses from our on-campus participating properties. See
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Funds from
Operations. |
This Offering
|
|
|
Common stock offered by us |
|
3,400,000 shares(1) |
|
Common stock to be outstanding after this Offering |
|
16,015,000 shares(1) |
|
Common stock and Operating Partnership units to be outstanding
after this Offering |
|
16,136,000 shares/units(1)(2) |
|
|
Use of proceeds |
|
We intend to use the net proceeds from this Offering to fund the
acquisition and development of student housing properties. In
the interim, we intend to use $50.2 million to repay the
outstanding balance of our revolving credit facility and the
remaining $19.0 million for working capital and general
corporate purposes. |
|
|
New York Stock Exchange symbol |
|
ACC |
|
|
(1) |
Excludes 510,000 shares issuable upon exercise of the
underwriters overallotment option, 653,345 shares
available for future issuance under our 2004 incentive award
plan and the following shares issued under our 2004 incentive
award plan: |
|
|
|
|
|
14,375 shares underlying restricted stock units granted to
non-employee directors; |
|
|
|
53,598 restricted stock awards granted to employees; |
|
|
|
367,682 shares underlying an outperformance bonus plan for
key employees; and |
|
|
|
121,000 PIUs described in Note 2 below. |
|
|
(2) |
Includes 121,000 PIUs issued by us to certain of our current and
former key employees. Upon the consummation of this Offering,
all of the PIUs will become ordinary units exchangeable for cash
or, at the option of the Operating Partnership, for shares of
our common stock on a one-for-one basis. |
17
RISK FACTORS
Investment in our common stock involves a high degree of
risk. You should therefore carefully consider the material risks
of an investment in our common stock, which are discussed in
this section, as well as the other information contained in this
prospectus, before making your investment decision. The
occurrence of any of the following risks could materially and
adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations,
cash flow, per share trading price and ability to satisfy our
debt service obligations and pay dividends or distributions to
you and could cause you to lose all or a part of your
investment. Some statements in this prospectus, including
statements in the following risk factors, constitute forward
looking statements. Please refer to the section entitled
Forward Looking Statements.
Risks Related to Our Properties and Our Business
|
|
|
Our results of operations are subject to an annual leasing
cycle, short lease-up period, seasonal cash flows, changing
university admission and housing policies and other risks
inherent in the student housing industry. |
We generally lease our owned properties under 12-month leases,
and in certain cases, under ten-month, nine-month or
shorter-term semester leases. As a result, we may experience
significantly reduced cash flows during the summer months at
properties leased under leases having terms shorter than
12 months. Furthermore, all of our properties must be
entirely re-leased each year, exposing us to increased leasing
risk. In addition, we are subject to increased leasing risk on
our properties under construction and future acquired properties
based on our lack of experience leasing those properties and
unfamiliarity with their leasing cycles. Student housing
properties are also typically leased during a limited leasing
season that usually begins in January and ends in August of each
year. We are therefore highly dependent on the effectiveness of
our marketing and leasing efforts and personnel during this
season.
Changes in university admission policies could adversely affect
us. For example, if a university reduces the number of student
admissions or requires that a certain class of students, such as
freshman, live in a university owned facility, the demand for
beds at our properties may be reduced and our occupancy rates
may decline. While we may engage in marketing efforts to
compensate for such change in admission policy, we may not be
able to effect such marketing efforts prior to the commencement
of the annual lease-up period or our additional marketing
efforts may not be successful.
We rely on our relationships with colleges and universities for
referrals of prospective student-tenants or for mailing lists of
prospective student-tenants and their parents. Many of these
colleges and universities own and operate their own competing
on-campus facilities, as discussed below. Any failure to
maintain good relationships with these colleges and universities
could therefore have a material adverse effect on us. If
colleges and universities refuse to make their lists of
prospective student-tenants and their parents available to us or
increase the costs of these lists, there could be a material
adverse effect on us.
Federal and state laws require colleges to publish and
distribute reports of on-campus crime statistics, which may
result in negative publicity and media coverage associated with
crimes occurring on or in the vicinity of our on-campus
participating properties. Reports of crime or other negative
publicity regarding the safety of the students residing on, or
near, our properties may have an adverse effect on both our
on-campus and off-campus business.
|
|
|
We face significant competition from university-owned
on-campus student housing, from other off-campus student housing
properties and from traditional multifamily housing located
within close proximity to universities. |
On-campus student housing has certain inherent advantages over
off-campus student housing in terms of physical proximity to the
university campus and integration of on-campus facilities into
the academic community. Colleges and universities can generally
avoid real estate taxes and borrow funds at lower interest rates
than us and other private sector operators. We also compete with
national and regional
18
owner-operators of off-campus student housing in a number of
markets as well as with smaller local owner-operators.
Currently, the industry is fragmented with no participant
holding a significant market share. There are a number of
student housing complexes that are located near or in the same
general vicinity of many of our owned properties and that
compete directly with us. Such competing student housing
complexes may be newer than our properties, located closer to
campus, charge less rent, possess more attractive amenities or
offer more services or shorter term or more flexible leases.
Rental income at a particular property could also be affected by
a number of other factors, including the construction of new
on-campus and off-campus residences, increases or decreases in
the general levels of rents for housing in competing
communities, increases or decreases in the number of students
enrolled at one or more of the colleges or universities in the
market of the property and other general economic conditions.
We believe that a number of other large national companies with
substantial financial and marketing resources may be potential
entrants in the student housing business. The entry of one or
more of these companies could increase competition for students
and for the acquisition, development and management of other
student housing properties.
|
|
|
We may be unable to successfully complete and operate our
properties or our third party developed properties. |
We intend to continue to develop and construct student housing
in accordance with our growth strategies, including our one
off-campus property and one on-campus participating property
currently under development, as well as the two off-campus
properties currently in pre-development. These activities may
also include any of the following risks:
|
|
|
|
|
We may be unable to obtain construction financing on favorable
terms or at all. |
|
|
|
We may be unable to obtain permanent financing on favorable
terms or at all if we finance development projects through
construction loans. |
|
|
|
We may not complete development projects on schedule, within
budgeted amounts or in conformity with building plans and
specifications, including our four current properties under
development. |
|
|
|
We may encounter delays or refusals in obtaining all necessary
zoning, land use, building, occupancy and other required
governmental permits and authorizations. |
|
|
|
Occupancy and rental rates at newly developed or renovated
properties may fluctuate depending on a number of factors,
including market and economic conditions, and may reduce or
eliminate our return on investment. |
|
|
|
We may become liable for injuries and accidents occurring during
the construction process and for environmental liabilities,
including off-site disposal of construction materials. |
|
|
|
We may decide to abandon our development efforts if we determine
that continuing the project would not be in our best interests. |
|
|
|
We may encounter strikes, weather, government regulations and
other conditions beyond our control. |
Our newly developed properties will be subject to risks
associated with managing new properties, including lease-up and
integration risks. In addition, new development activities,
regardless of whether or not they are ultimately successful,
typically will require a substantial portion of the time and
attention of our development and management personnel. Newly
developed properties may not perform as expected.
We anticipate that we will, from time to time, elect not to
proceed with ongoing development projects. If we elect not to
proceed with a development project, the development costs
associated therewith will
19
ordinarily be charged against income for the then-current
period. Any such charge could have a material adverse effect on
our results of operations in the period in which the charge is
taken.
We may in the future develop properties nationally,
internationally or in geographic regions other than those in
which we currently operate. We do not possess the same level of
familiarity with development in these new markets, which could
adversely affect our ability to develop such properties
successfully or at all or to achieve expected performance.
Future development opportunities may not be available to us on
terms that meet our investment criteria or we may be
unsuccessful in capitalizing on such opportunities. Our ability
to capitalize on such opportunities will be largely dependent
upon external sources of capital that may not be available to us
on favorable terms or at all.
We typically provide guarantees of timely completion of projects
that we develop for third parties. In certain cases, our
contingent liability under these guarantees may exceed our
development fee from the project. Although we seek to mitigate
this risk by, among other things, obtaining similar guarantees
from the project contractor, we could sustain significant losses
if development of a project were to be delayed or stopped and we
were unable to cover our guarantee exposure with the guarantee
received from the project contractor.
|
|
|
We may be unable to successfully acquire properties on
favorable terms. |
Our future growth will be dependent upon our ability to
successfully acquire new properties on favorable terms. As we
acquire additional properties, we will be subject to risks
associated with managing new properties, including lease-up and
integration risks. Newly developed and recently acquired
properties may not perform as expected and may have
characteristics or deficiencies unknown to us at the time of
acquisition. Future acquisition opportunities may not be
available to us on terms that meet our investment criteria or we
may be unsuccessful in capitalizing on such opportunities. Our
ability to capitalize on such opportunities will be largely
dependent upon external sources of capital that may not be
available to us on favorable terms or at all.
Our ability to acquire properties on favorable terms and
successfully operate them involve the following significant
risks:
|
|
|
|
|
Potential inability to acquire a desired property may be caused
by competition from other real estate investors. |
|
|
|
Competition from other potential acquirers may significantly
increase the purchase price. |
|
|
|
We may be unable to finance an acquisition on favorable terms or
at all. |
|
|
|
We may have to incur significant capital expenditures to improve
or renovate acquired properties. |
|
|
|
We may be unable to quickly and efficiently integrate new
acquisitions, particularly acquisitions of portfolios of
properties, into our existing operations. |
|
|
|
Market conditions may result in higher than expected costs and
vacancy rates and lower than expected rental rates. |
|
|
|
We may acquire properties subject to liabilities but without any
recourse, or with only limited recourse, to the sellers, or with
liabilities that are unknown to us, such as liabilities for
clean-up of undisclosed environmental contamination, claims by
tenants, vendors or other persons dealing with the former owners
of our properties and claims for indemnification by members,
directors, officers and others indemnified by the former owners
of our properties. |
Our failure to finance property acquisitions on favorable terms,
or operate acquired properties to meet our financial
expectations, could adversely affect us.
20
|
|
|
Our debt level reduces cash available for distribution and
may expose us to the risk of default under our debt
obligations. |
As of March 31, 2005, our total consolidated indebtedness
was approximately $309.4 million (excluding unamortized
debt premiums). Our debt service obligations expose us to the
risk of default and reduce or eliminate cash resources that are
available to operate our business or pay distributions that are
necessary to maintain our REIT qualification. There is no limit
on the amount of indebtedness that we may incur except as
provided by the covenants in our revolving credit facility. We
expect to incur additional indebtedness under our revolving
credit facility to fund future property development and
acquisitions and other working capital needs, which may include
the payment of distributions to our stockholders. The amount
available to us and our ability to borrow from time to time
under our revolving credit facility is subject to certain
conditions and the satisfaction of specified financial
covenants. Our level of debt and the limitations imposed on us
by our debt agreements could have significant adverse
consequences, including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
We may be unable to borrow additional funds as needed or on
favorable terms. |
|
|
|
We may be unable to refinance our indebtedness at maturity or
the refinancing terms may be less favorable than the terms of
our original indebtedness. |
|
|
|
We may be forced to dispose of one or more of our properties,
possibly on disadvantageous terms. |
|
|
|
We may default on our payment or other obligations as a result
of insufficient cash flow or otherwise, which may result in a
cross-default on our other obligations, and the lenders or
mortgagees may foreclose on our properties that secure their
loans and receive an assignment of rents and leases. |
|
|
|
Foreclosures could create taxable income without accompanying
cash proceeds, a circumstance that could hinder our ability to
meet the REIT distribution requirements imposed by the Code. |
|
|
|
We may not be able to recover pre-development costs for
university developments. |
University systems and educational institutions typically award
us development services contracts on the basis of a competitive
award process, but such contracts are typically executed
following the formal approval of the transaction by the
institutions governing body. In the intervening period, we
may incur significant pre-development and other costs in the
expectation that the development services contract will be
executed. If an institutions governing body does not
ultimately approve our selection and the terms of the pending
development contract, we may not be able to recoup these costs
from the institution and the resulting losses could be material.
|
|
|
Our awarded projects may not be successfully structured or
financed and may delay our recognition of revenues. |
The recognition and timing of revenues from our awarded
development services projects will, among other things, be
contingent upon successfully structuring and closing project
financing as well as the timing of construction. The development
projects that we have been awarded have at times been delayed
beyond the originally scheduled construction commencement date.
If such delays were to occur with our current awarded projects,
our recognition of expected revenues and receipt of expected
fees from these projects would be delayed.
|
|
|
Two of our properties are under construction, and we may
encounter delays in completion or experience cost
overruns. |
Two of our properties, which upon completion will comprise
approximately 7.6% of our total beds, are currently under
construction and are subject to the various risks relating to
properties that are under construction referred to elsewhere in
these risk factors, including the risks that we may encounter
delays in completion and that these two projects may experience
cost overruns. These properties may not be
21
completed on time for the 2005/2006 academic year. Additionally,
if we do not complete the construction of one of these
properties (Cullen Oaks Phase II, an on-campus
participating property) prior to such time, we are required to
provide alternative housing to the students with whom we have
signed leases. We have not made any arrangements for such
alternative housing for this property and we would likely incur
significant expenses in the event we provide such housing. If
construction is not completed prior to the beginning of the
2005/2006 academic year, students may attempt to break their
leases and our occupancy at this property for that academic year
may suffer. Similar issues may be present in future development
projects.
|
|
|
Our guarantees could result in liabilities in excess of
our development fees. |
In third party developments, we typically provide guarantees of
the obligations of the developer, including development budgets
and timely project completion. These guarantees include, among
other things, the cost of providing alternate housing for
students in the event we do not timely complete a development
project. These guarantees typically exclude delays resulting
from force majeure and also, in third party transactions, are
typically limited in amount to the amount of our development
fees from the project. In certain cases, however, our contingent
liability under these guarantees has exceeded our development
fee from the project and we may agree to such arrangements in
the future. Our obligations under alternative housing guarantees
typically expire five days after construction is complete.
Project cost guarantees are normally satisfied within one year
after completion of the project.
|
|
|
Universities have the right to terminate our participating
ground leases. |
The ground leases through which we own our on-campus
participating properties provide that the university lessor may
purchase our interest in and assume the management of the
facility, with the purchase price calculated at the discounted
present cash value of our leasehold interest. The exercise of
any such buyout would result in a significant reduction in our
portfolio.
|
|
|
We have a significant presence on a single university
campus. |
The on-campus participating properties at Prairie View A&M
University represented approximately 21.0% of our consolidated
and combined revenues for 2004. The percentage of consolidated
and combined net income attributable to those facilities is
minimal. The unlikely event of significantly diminished
enrollment at this university could have a negative impact on
our ability to achieve our forecasted profitability.
Risks Related to the Real Estate Industry
|
|
|
Our performance and value are subject to risks associated
with real estate assets and with the real estate
industry. |
Our ability to make expected distributions to our stockholders
depends on our ability to generate cash revenues in excess of
expenses, scheduled debt service obligations and capital
expenditure requirements. Events and conditions generally
applicable to owners and operators of real property that are
beyond our control may decrease cash available for distribution
and the value of our properties. These events include:
|
|
|
|
|
general economic conditions; |
|
|
|
rising level of interest rates; |
|
|
|
local oversupply, increased competition or reduction in demand
for student housing; |
|
|
|
inability to collect rent from tenants; |
|
|
|
vacancies or our inability to rent space on favorable terms; |
|
|
|
inability to finance property development and acquisitions on
favorable terms; |
|
|
|
increased operating costs, including insurance premiums,
utilities, and real estate taxes; |
22
|
|
|
|
|
costs of complying with changes in governmental regulations; |
|
|
|
the relative illiquidity of real estate investments; |
|
|
|
decreases in student enrollment at particular colleges and
universities; |
|
|
|
changes in university policies related to admissions; and |
|
|
|
changing student demographics. |
In addition, periods of economic slowdown or recession, rising
interest rates or declining demand for real estate, or the
public perception that any of these events may occur, could
result in a general decline in rents or an increased incidence
of defaults under existing leases, which would adversely affect
us.
|
|
|
Potential losses may not be covered by insurance. |
We carry fire, earthquake, terrorism, business interruption,
vandalism, malicious mischief, boiler and machinery, commercial
general liability and workers compensation insurance
covering all of the properties in our portfolio under various
policies. We believe the policy specifications and insured
limits are appropriate and adequate given the relative risk of
loss, the cost of the coverage and industry practice. There are,
however, certain types of losses, such as property damage from
generally unsecured losses such as riots, wars, punitive damage
awards or acts of God, that may be either uninsurable or not
economically insurable. Some of our properties are insured
subject to limitations involving large deductibles and policy
limits that may not be sufficient to cover losses. In addition,
we may discontinue earthquake, terrorism or other insurance on
some or all of our properties in the future if the cost of
premiums for any of these policies exceeds, in our judgment, the
value of the coverage discounted for the risk of loss.
If we experience a loss that is uninsured or that exceeds policy
limits, we could lose the capital invested in the damaged
properties as well as the anticipated future cash flows from
those properties. In addition, if the damaged properties are
subject to recourse indebtedness, we would continue to be liable
for the indebtedness, even if these properties were irreparably
damaged and require substantial expenditures to rebuild or
repair. In the event of a significant loss at one or more of our
properties, the remaining insurance under our policies, if any,
could be insufficient to adequately insure our other properties.
In such event, securing additional insurance, if possible, could
be significantly more expensive than our current policies.
|
|
|
Unionization or work stoppages could have an adverse
effect on us. |
We are at times required to use unionized construction workers
or to pay the prevailing wage in a jurisdiction to such workers.
Due to the highly labor intensive and price competitive nature
of the construction business, the cost of unionization and/or
prevailing wage requirements for new developments could be
substantial. Unionization and prevailing wage requirements could
adversely affect a new developments profitability. Union
activity or a union workforce could increase the risk of a
strike, which would adversely affect our ability to meet our
construction timetables.
|
|
|
We could incur significant costs related to government
regulation and private litigation over environmental
matters. |
Under various environmental laws, including the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), a current or previous owner or operator of
real property may be liable for contamination resulting from the
release or threatened release of hazardous or toxic substances
or petroleum at that property, and an entity that arranges for
the disposal or treatment of a hazardous or toxic substance or
petroleum at another property may be held jointly and severally
liable for the cost to investigate and clean up such property or
other affected property. Such parties are known as potentially
responsible parties (PRPs). Such environmental laws
often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or
operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of the
contaminants, and the costs of any required investigation or
cleanup of these substances can be substantial. PRPs are liable
to the
23
government as well as to other PRPs who may have claims for
contribution. The liability is generally not limited under such
laws and could exceed the propertys value and the
aggregate assets of the liable party. The presence of
contamination or the failure to remediate contamination at our
properties may expose us to third party liability for personal
injury or property damage, or adversely affect our ability to
sell, lease or develop the real property or to borrow using the
real property as collateral.
Environmental laws also impose ongoing compliance requirements
on owners and operators of real property. Environmental laws
potentially affecting us address a wide variety of matters,
including, but not limited to, asbestos-containing building
materials (ACBM), storage tanks, stormwater and
wastewater discharges, lead-based paint, wetlands, and hazardous
wastes. Failure to comply with these laws could result in fines
and penalties or expose us to third party liability. Some of our
properties may have conditions that are subject to these
requirements and we could be liable for such fines or penalties
or liable to third-parties, as described below in Business
and Properties Regulation Environmental
Matters.
|
|
|
Existing conditions at some of our properties may expose
us to liability related to environmental matters. |
Some of the properties in our portfolio may contain
asbestos-containing building materials, or ACBMs. Environmental
laws require that ACBMs be properly managed and maintained, and
may impose fines and penalties on building owners or operators
for failure to comply with these requirements. Also, some of the
properties in our portfolio contain, or may have contained, or
are adjacent to or near other properties that have contained or
currently contain storage tanks for the storage of petroleum
products or other hazardous or toxic substances. These
operations create a potential for the release of petroleum
products or other hazardous or toxic substances. Third parties
may be permitted by law to seek recovery from owners or
operators for personal injury associated with exposure to
contaminants, including, but not limited to, petroleum products,
hazardous or toxic substances, and asbestos fibers. Also, some
of the properties may contain regulated wetlands that can delay
or impede development or require costs to be incurred to
mitigate the impact of any disturbance. Absent appropriate
permits, we can be held responsible for restoring wetlands and
be required to pay fines and penalties.
Some of the properties in our portfolio may contain microbial
matter such as mold, mildew and viruses. The presence of
microbial matter could adversely affect our results of
operations. In addition, if any property in our portfolio is not
properly connected to a water or sewer system, or if the
integrity of such systems are breached, microbial matter or
other contamination can develop. If this were to occur, we could
incur significant remedial costs and we may also be subject to
material private damage claims and awards, which could be
material. If we become subject to claims in this regard, it
could materially and adversely affect us and our insurability
for such matters in the future.
From time to time, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, or EPA, designates certain sites affected by hazardous
substances as Superfund sites pursuant to CERCLA.
Superfund sites can cover large areas, affecting many different
parcels of land. Although CERCLA imposes joint and several
liability for contamination on property owners and operators
regardless of fault, the EPA may chose to pursue PRPs based on
their actual contribution to the contamination. PRPs are liable
for the costs of responding to the hazardous substances. Commons
on Apache, The Village at University and University Village at
San Bernardino (which we disposed of in January 2005) are
located within federal Superfund sites. EPA designated these
areas as Superfund sites because groundwater beneath these areas
is contaminated. We have not been named as a PRP with respect to
these sites.
Independent environmental consultants conducted Phase I
environmental site assessments on all of the owned properties
and on-campus participating properties in our existing
portfolio. Phase I environmental site assessments are
intended to evaluate information regarding the environmental
condition of the surveyed property and surrounding properties
based generally on visual observations, interviews and certain
publicly available databases. These assessments do not typically
take into account all environmental issues, including, but not
limited to, testing of soil or groundwater, comprehensive
asbestos survey or an invasive
24
inspection for the presence of mold contamination. In some cases
where prior use was a concern, additional study was undertaken.
These assessments may have failed to reveal all environmental
conditions, liabilities, or compliance concerns. Material
environmental conditions, liabilities, or compliance concerns
may have arisen after the assessments were conducted or may
arise in the future. In addition, future laws, ordinances or
regulations may impose material additional environmental
liability. The costs of future environmental compliance may
affect our ability to pay distributions to you and such costs or
other remedial measures may be material to us.
|
|
|
We may incur environmental liabilities. |
We do not carry environmental insurance on our properties.
Environmental liability at any of our properties may have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, cash flow, the trading price of our common stock or
our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and pay
dividends or distributions to our stockholders.
|
|
|
We may incur significant costs complying with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws. |
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or the ADA,
all public accommodations must meet federal requirements related
to access and use by disabled persons. Additional federal, state
and local laws also may require modifications to our properties,
or restrict our ability to renovate our properties. For example,
the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, or FHAA, requires
apartment properties first occupied after March 13, 1990 to
be accessible to the handicapped. We have not conducted an audit
or investigation of all of our properties to determine our
compliance with present requirements. Noncompliance with the ADA
or FHAA could result in the imposition of fines or an award or
damages to private litigants and also could result in an order
to correct any non-complying feature. We cannot predict the
ultimate amount of the cost of compliance with the ADA, FHAA or
other legislation. If we incur substantial costs to comply with
the ADA, FHAA or any other legislation, we could be materially
and adversely affected.
|
|
|
We may incur significant costs complying with other
regulations. |
The properties in our portfolio are subject to various federal,
state and local regulatory requirements, such as state and local
fire and life safety requirements. If we fail to comply with
these various requirements, we might incur governmental fines or
private damage awards. Furthermore, existing requirements could
change and require us to make significant unanticipated
expenditures that would materially and adversely affect us.
|
|
|
Joint venture investments could be adversely affected by
our lack of sole decision-making authority, our reliance on
co-venturers financial condition and disputes between our
co-venturers and us. |
We have in the past co-invested, and anticipate that we will
continue in the future to co-invest, with third parties through
partnerships, joint ventures or other entities, acquiring
non-controlling interests in or sharing responsibility for
managing the affairs of a property, partnership, joint venture
or other entity. In connection with joint venture investment, we
do not have sole decision-making control regarding the property,
partnership, joint venture or other entity. Investments in
partnerships, joint ventures or other entities may, under
certain circumstances, involve risks not present were a third
party not involved, including the possibility that our partners
or co-venturers might become bankrupt or fail to fund their
share of required capital contributions. Our partners or
co-venturers also may have economic or other business interests
or goals that are inconsistent with our business interests or
goals, and may be in a position to take actions contrary to our
preferences, policies or objectives. Such investments also will
have the potential risk of impasses on decisions, such as a
sale, because neither we nor our partners or co-venturers would
have full control over the partnership or joint venture.
Disputes between us and our partners or co-venturers may result
in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses
and prevent
25
our officers and/or directors from focusing their time and
effort exclusively on our business. Consequently, actions by or
disputes with our partners or co-venturers might result in
subjecting properties owned by the partnership, joint venture or
other entity to additional risk. In addition, we may in certain
circumstances be liable for the actions of our partners or
co-venturers.
Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure
|
|
|
We are recently organized and have a limited operating
history. |
We were organized in March 2004 and have a limited operating
history. In addition, all of our properties have been acquired
or developed by us or our Predecessor Entities within the past
nine years and have limited operating histories under current
management. Consequently, our historical operating results and
the financial data set forth in this prospectus may not be
useful in assessing our likely future performance. The operating
performance of the properties may decline under our management.
We may not be able to generate sufficient cash from operations
to make distributions to our stockholders.
We will also be subject to the risks generally associated with
the operation of a relatively new business.
|
|
|
To qualify as a REIT, we may be forced to limit the
activities of our TRS. |
To qualify as a REIT, no more than 20% of the value of our total
assets may consist of the securities of one or more taxable REIT
subsidiaries, such as our TRS. Certain of our activities, such
as our third party development, management and leasing services,
must be conducted through our TRS for us to qualify as a REIT.
In addition, certain non-customary services must be provided by
a taxable REIT subsidiary or an independent contractor. If the
revenues from such activities create a risk that the value of
our TRS, based on revenues or otherwise, approaches the 20%
threshold, we will be forced to curtail such activities or take
other steps to remain under the 20% threshold. Since the 20%
threshold is based on value, it is possible that the IRS could
successfully contend that the value of our TRS exceeds the 20%
threshold even if our TRS accounts for less than 20% of our
consolidated revenues, income or cash flow. Our on-campus
participating properties and our third party services are held
by our TRS. Consequently, income earned from our on-campus
participating properties and our third party services will be
subject to regular federal income taxation and state and local
income taxation where applicable, thus reducing the amount of
cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
Our TRS is a taxable REIT subsidiary and is not permitted to
directly or indirectly operate or manage a hotel, motel or
other establishment more than one-half of the dwelling units in
which are used on a transient basis. We believe that our
method of operating our TRS will not be considered to constitute
such an activity. Future Treasury Regulations or other guidance
interpreting the applicable provisions might adopt a different
approach, or the IRS might disagree with our conclusion. In such
event we might be forced to change our method of operating our
TRS, which could adversely affect us, or our TRS could fail to
qualify as a taxable REIT subsidiary, which would likely cause
us to fail to qualify as a REIT.
|
|
|
Failure to qualify as a REIT would have significant
adverse consequences to us and the value of our stock. |
We intend to operate in a manner that will allow us to qualify
as a REIT for federal income tax purposes under the Code. If we
lose our REIT status, we will face serious tax consequences that
would substantially reduce or eliminate the funds available for
distribution to stockholders for each of the years involved,
because:
|
|
|
|
|
we would not be allowed a deduction for dividends to
stockholders in computing our taxable income and such amounts
would be subject to federal income tax at regular corporate
rates; |
|
|
|
we also could be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax
and possibly increased state and local taxes; and |
26
|
|
|
|
|
unless we are entitled to relief under applicable statutory
provisions, we could not elect to be taxed as a REIT for four
taxable years following the year during which we were
disqualified. |
In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we will not be
required to pay dividends to stockholders, and all dividends to
stockholders will be subject to tax as ordinary income to the
extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits. As a
result of all these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT
also could impair our ability to expand our business and raise
capital, and would adversely affect the value of our common
stock.
Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly
technical and complex Code provisions for which there are only
limited judicial and administrative interpretations. The
complexity of these provisions and of the applicable Treasury
Regulations that have been promulgated under the Code is greater
in the case of a REIT that, like us, holds its assets through a
partnership or a limited liability company. The determination of
various factual matters and circumstances not entirely within
our control may affect our ability to qualify as a REIT. In
order to qualify as a REIT, we must satisfy a number of
requirements, including requirements regarding the composition
of our assets and two gross income tests:
(a) at least 75% of our gross income in any year must be
derived from qualified sources, such as rents from real
property, mortgage interest, dividends from other REITs
and gains from sale of such assets, and (b) at least 95% of
our gross income must be derived from sources meeting the 75%
income test above, and other passive investment sources, such as
other interest and dividends and gains from sale of securities.
Also, we must pay dividends to stockholders aggregating annually
at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding any net
capital gains. In addition, legislation, new regulations,
administrative interpretations or court decisions may adversely
affect our investors, our ability to qualify as a REIT for
federal income tax purposes or the desirability of an investment
in a REIT relative to other investments.
Even if we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we
may be subject to some federal, state and local taxes on our
income or property and, in certain cases, a 100% penalty tax, in
the event we sell property as a dealer or if our TRS enters into
agreements with us or our tenants on a basis that is determined
to be other than an arms length basis.
|
|
|
To qualify as a REIT, we may be forced to borrow funds on
a short-term basis during unfavorable market conditions. |
In order to qualify as a REIT, we are required under the Code to
distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income,
determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and
excluding any net capital gain. Our TRS may, in its discretion,
retain any income it generates net of any tax liability it
incurs on that income without affecting the 90% distribution
requirements to which we are subject as a REIT. Net income of
our TRS is included in REIT taxable income and increases the
amount required to be distributed, only if such amounts are paid
out as a dividend by our TRS. If our TRS distributes any of its
after-tax income to us, that distribution will be included in
our REIT taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to
income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that we
distribute less than 100% of our net taxable income, including
any net capital gains. Because of these distribution
requirements, we may not be able to fund future capital needs,
including any necessary acquisition financing, from operating
cash flow. Consequently, we will be compelled to rely on third
party sources to fund our capital needs. We may not be able to
obtain this financing on favorable terms or at all. Any
additional indebtedness that we incur will increase our
leverage. Our access to third party sources of capital depends,
in part, on:
|
|
|
|
|
general market conditions; |
|
|
|
our current debt levels and the number of properties subject to
encumbrances; |
|
|
|
our current performance and the markets perception of our
growth potential; |
|
|
|
our cash flow and cash dividends; and |
|
|
|
the market price per share of our common stock. |
27
If we cannot obtain capital from third party sources, we may not
be able to acquire or develop properties when strategic
opportunities exist, satisfy our debt service obligations or
make the cash distributions to our stockholders, including those
necessary to qualify as a REIT.
|
|
|
Our charter contains restrictions on the ownership and
transfer of our stock. |
Our charter provides that, subject to certain exceptions, no
person or entity may beneficially own, or be deemed to own by
virtue of the applicable constructive ownership provisions of
the Code, more than 9.8% (by value or by number of shares,
whichever is more restrictive) of the outstanding shares of our
common stock or more than 9.8% by value of all our outstanding
shares, including both common and preferred stock. We refer to
this restriction as the ownership limit. A person or
entity that becomes subject to the ownership limit by virtue of
a violative transfer that results in a transfer to a trust is
referred to as a purported beneficial transferee if,
had the violative transfer been effective, the person or entity
would have been a record owner and beneficial owner or solely a
beneficial owner of our stock, or is referred to as a
purported record transferee if, had the violative
transfer been effective, the person or entity would have been
solely a record owner of our stock.
The constructive ownership rules under the Code are complex and
may cause stock owned actually or constructively by a group of
related individuals and/or entities to be owned constructively
by one individual or entity. As a result, the acquisition of
less than 9.8% of our stock (or the acquisition of an interest
in an entity that owns, actually or constructively, our stock)
by an individual or entity, could, nevertheless cause that
individual or entity, or another individual or entity, to own
constructively in excess of 9.8% of our outstanding stock and
thereby subject the stock to the ownership limit. Our charter,
however, requires exceptions to be made to this limitation if
our board of directors determines that such exceptions will not
jeopardize our tax status as a REIT. This ownership limit could
delay, defer or prevent a change of control or other transaction
that might involve a premium price for our common stock or
otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.
|
|
|
Certain tax and anti-takeover provisions of our charter
and bylaws may inhibit a change of our control. |
Certain provisions contained in our charter and bylaws and the
Maryland General Corporation Law may discourage a third party
from making a tender offer or acquisition proposal to us. If
this were to happen, it could delay, deter or prevent a change
in control or the removal of existing management. These
provisions also may delay or prevent the stockholders from
receiving a premium for their shares of common stock over
then-prevailing market prices. These provisions include:
|
|
|
|
|
the REIT ownership limit described above; |
|
|
|
authorization of the issuance of our preferred shares with
powers, preferences or rights to be determined by our board of
directors; |
|
|
|
the right of our board of directors, without a stockholder vote,
to increase our authorized shares and classify or reclassify
unissued shares; |
|
|
|
advance-notice requirements for stockholder nomination of
directors and for other proposals to be presented to stockholder
meetings; and |
|
|
|
the requirement that a majority vote of the holders of common
stock is needed to remove a member of our board of directors for
cause. |
|
|
|
The Maryland business statutes also impose potential
restrictions on a change of control of our company. |
Various Maryland laws may have the effect of discouraging offers
to acquire us, even if the acquisition would be advantageous to
stockholders. Our bylaws exempt us from some of those laws, such
as the
28
control share acquisition provisions, but our board of directors
can change our bylaws at any time to make these provisions
applicable to us.
|
|
|
We have the right to change some of our policies that may
be important to our stockholders without stockholder
consent. |
Our major policies, including our policies with respect to
investments, leverage, financing, growth, debt and
capitalization, are determined by our board of directors or
those committees or officers to whom our board of directors has
delegated that authority. Our board of directors also
establishes the amount of any dividends or distributions that we
pay to our stockholders. Our board of directors may amend or
revise the listed policies, our dividend or distribution payment
amounts and other policies from time to time without stockholder
vote. Accordingly, our stockholders may not have control over
changes in our policies.
|
|
|
Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take
action against our directors and officers are limited. |
Maryland law provides that a director or officer has no
liability in that capacity if he or she performs his or her
duties in good faith, in a manner he or she reasonably believe
to be in our best interests and with the care that an ordinary
prudent person in a like position would use under similar
circumstances. In addition, our charter eliminates our
directors and officers liability to us and our
stockholders for money damages except for liability resulting
from actual receipt of an improper benefit in money, property or
services or active and deliberate dishonesty established by a
final judgment and which is material to the cause of action. Our
bylaws require us to indemnify directors and officers for
liability resulting from actions taken by them in those
capacitates to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. As
a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights
against our directors and officers than might otherwise exist
under common law. In addition, we may be obligated to fund the
defense costs incurred by our directors and officers.
|
|
|
Our success depends on key personnel whose continued
service is not guaranteed. |
We are dependent upon the efforts of our key personnel,
particularly William C. Bayless, Jr., our President and
Chief Executive Officer, Brian B. Nickel, our Executive Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary, James C.
Hopke, Jr., our Executive Vice President and Chief
Investment Officer, and Greg A. Dowell, our Executive Vice
President and Chief of Operations. Mr. Bayless has directed
the companys key business segments since inception and
possesses nearly 20 years of student housing development
and management experience. Messrs. Bayless, Nickel, Hopke
and Dowell all have substantial industry reputations that
attract business and investment opportunities and assist us in
negotiations with lenders, universities and industry personnel.
Jason R. Wills, our Senior Vice President Marketing and
Business Development, and Brian N. Winger, our Senior Vice
President Development, both have strong industry
reputations and specialized experience, which aid us in
developing, acquiring and managing our properties. The loss of
the services of any of such personnel could materially and
adversely affect us.
|
|
|
The majority of our management have limited experience
operating a REIT or a public company. |
We have a limited operating history as a REIT or a public
company. Our board of directors and executive officers will have
overall responsibility for our management. While our executive
and senior officers have extensive experience in real estate
marketing, development, management and finance, they have
limited prior experience in operating a business in accordance
with the Code requirements for qualification as a REIT,
operating a public company or complying with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, or the SEC, regulations. Failure to qualify
as a REIT would have an adverse effect on our cash available for
distribution to our stockholders. Failure to properly comply
with SEC regulations and requirements could impair our ability
to operate as a public company.
29
|
|
|
In addition to the underwriting discounts to be received
by Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and KeyBanc Capital Markets, a
division of McDonald Investments Inc., their affiliates will
receive benefits from this Offering. |
Affiliates of Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and KeyBanc
Capital Markets, a division of McDonald Investments Inc., four
of our underwriters, are lenders under our revolving credit
facility. As of June 17, 2005, approximately
$50.2 million of borrowings were outstanding under this
facility. We intend to repay all of the outstanding borrowings
under our revolving credit facility with a portion of the net
proceeds of this Offering and, upon application of the net
proceeds from this Offering, each lender will receive its
proportionate share of the amount repaid. See Use of
Proceeds.
Risks Related to this Offering
|
|
|
We may not be able to make distributions to our
stockholders in the future. |
We are required to distribute 90% of our REIT taxable income
(excluding capital gains) on an annual basis in order to qualify
as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, we
intend to make, but are not contractually bound to make, regular
quarterly distributions to common stockholders and PIU holders.
If we do not generate revenues from our properties and third
party development and management services sufficient to meet our
operating expenses, including debt service and capital
expenditures, our cash flow will decrease. This could have an
adverse effect on our ability to pay distributions to our
stockholders. We may be required to use borrowings under the
credit facility, if necessary, to meet REIT distribution
requirements and qualify as a REIT. However, our revolving
credit facility contains covenants that restrict our ability to
pay distributions or other amounts to our stockholders unless
certain tests are satisfied and also contains certain provisions
restricting our ability to draw funds under the facility. We
expect to incur additional indebtedness through borrowings under
our credit facility to fund future property development,
acquisitions and other working capital needs, which may include
the payment of distributions to our stockholders. All
distributions are at the discretion of our board of directors.
The board of directors considers market factors and our
performance in addition to REIT requirements in determining
distribution levels. To the extent we use our working capital or
borrowings under our revolving credit facility to fund our
distributions, our financial condition and our ability to access
these funds for other purposes, such as the expansion of our
business or future distributions, could be adversely affected.
Any such distributions from working capital or borrowings may
represent a return of capital for federal income tax purposes.
We expect that approximately 60% of our 2005 annual distribution
will represent a return of capital for federal income tax
purposes.
|
|
|
Our distributions will not be eligible for the recent
lower tax rate on dividends except in limited situations. |
Unlike dividends received from a corporation that is not a REIT,
our distributions to individual stockholders generally will not
be eligible for the recent lower tax rate on dividends except in
limited situations.
|
|
|
The public offering price of our common stock in this
Offering may not be indicative of the market price of our common
stock after this Offering and our stock price may be
volatile. |
The public offering price of our common stock was determined in
consultation with the underwriters and may not be indicative of
the market price for our common stock after this Offering. The
market price of our common stock could be subject to significant
fluctuations after this Offering and may decline below the
public offering price. You may not be able to resell your shares
at or above the public offering price or at all.
The stock market in general has experienced extreme volatility
that has been unrelated to the operating performance of
particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may
adversely affect the trading price of our common stock.
30
|
|
|
Certain members of our senior management will receive an
economic benefit from this Offering. |
In conjunction with our IPO, our then executive officers and
certain members of senior management received
121,000 profits interest units in our Operating
Partnership, representing approximately a 1% limited partnership
interest in the Operating Partnership at that time. PIUs are a
special class of partnership interests in the Operating
Partnership. Each PIU awarded is deemed equivalent to an award
of one share of our common stock under our 2004 incentive award
plan, reducing availability for other equity awards on a
one-for-one basis. The consummation of this Offering will
constitute a book-up event and thereby automatically convert the
PIUs into an equal number of common units of the Operating
Partnership.
|
|
|
Market interest rates may have an effect on the value of
our common stock. |
One of the factors that will influence the price of our common
stock will be the dividend yield on our common stock (as a
percentage of the price of our common stock) relative to market
interest rates. An increase in market interest rates, which are
currently at low levels relative to historical rates, may lead
prospective purchasers of our common stock to expect a higher
dividend yield in order to maintain their investment. Higher
interest rates also would likely increase our borrowing costs
and potentially decrease funds available for distribution to our
stockholders. Thus, higher market interest rates could cause the
market price of our common stock to decrease.
|
|
|
The number of shares available for future sale could
adversely affect the market price of our common stock. |
We cannot predict whether future issuances of shares of our
common stock or the availability of shares for resale in the
open market will decrease the market price per share of our
common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our
common stock or securities convertible into or exchangeable or
exercisable for our common stock, such as units, or the
perception that such sales might occur could adversely affect
the market price of the shares of our common stock.
The exercise of the underwriters overallotment option, the
exchange of units for common stock, the exercise of any options
or the vesting of any restricted stock granted to certain
directors, executive officers and other employees under our
incentive award plan, the issuance of our common stock or units
in connection with property, portfolio or business acquisitions
and other issuances of our common stock or securities
convertible into or exchangeable or exercisable for our common
stock could have an adverse effect on the market price of the
shares of our common stock, and the existence of units, options,
shares of our common stock exercisable upon conversion of, or
exchange or exercise for, other securities or reserved for
issuance as restricted shares of our common stock or upon
exchange of units may adversely affect the terms upon which we
may be able to obtain additional capital through the sale of
equity securities. In addition, future sales of shares of our
common stock or securities convertible into or exchangeable or
exercisable for our common stock may be dilutive to existing
common stockholders.
31
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
We make statements in this prospectus that are forward-looking
statements. In particular, statements pertaining to our capital
resources, portfolio performance and results of operations
contain forward-looking statements. Likewise, all of our
statements regarding anticipated growth in our funds from
operations and anticipated market conditions, demographics and
results of operations are forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements involve numerous risks and
uncertainties and you should not rely on them as predictions of
future events. Forward-looking statements depend on assumptions,
data or methods that may be incorrect or imprecise and we may
not be able to realize them. We do not guarantee that the
transactions and events described will happen as described (or
that they will happen at all). You can identify forward-looking
statements by the use of forward-looking terminology such as
believes, expects, may,
will, should, seeks,
approximately, intends,
plans, pro forma, estimates
or anticipates or the negative of these words and
phrases or similar words or phrases. You can also identify
forward-looking statements by discussions of strategy, plans or
intentions. The following factors, among others, could cause
actual results and future events to differ materially from those
set forth or contemplated in the forward-looking statements:
|
|
|
|
|
changing university admission and housing policies; |
|
|
|
adverse economic or real estate developments; |
|
|
|
general economic conditions; |
|
|
|
future terrorist attacks in the U.S. or hostilities
involving the U.S.; |
|
|
|
defaults on or non-renewal of leases by student-tenants; |
|
|
|
increased interest rates and operating costs; |
|
|
|
debt levels and property encumbrances; |
|
|
|
our failure to obtain necessary third party financing; |
|
|
|
decreased rental rates or increased vacancy rates resulting from
competition or otherwise; |
|
|
|
difficulties in identifying properties to acquire and completing
acquisitions; |
|
|
|
our failure to successfully operate acquired properties and
operations; |
|
|
|
our failure to successfully develop properties in a timely
manner; |
|
|
|
our failure to maintain our status as a REIT; |
|
|
|
environmental costs, uncertainties and risks, especially those
related to natural disasters; |
|
|
|
financial market fluctuations; and |
|
|
|
changes in real estate and zoning laws and increases in real
property tax rates. |
For a further discussion of these and other factors that could
impact our future results, performance or transactions, see the
section above entitled Risk Factors.
32
USE OF PROCEEDS
Assuming an offering price of $21.97 per share, which was
the last reported sales price of our common stock on
June 17, 2005, we estimate we will receive gross proceeds
from this Offering of $74.7 million and approximately
$85.9 million if the underwriters overallotment
option is exercised in full. After deducting the underwriting
discount and estimated expenses of this Offering, we expect net
proceeds from this Offering of approximately $69.2 million
and approximately $79.9 million if the underwriters
overallotment option is exercised in full.
We intend to use the net proceeds from this Offering to fund the
acquisition and development of student housing properties. In
the interim, we intend to use $50.2 million to repay the
outstanding balance of our revolving credit facility and the
remaining $19.0 million for working capital and general
corporate purposes. See Risk FactorRisks Related to
Our Organization and StructureIn addition to the
underwriting discounts to be received by Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc. and KeyBanc Capital Markets, a division of
McDonald Investments Inc., their affiliates will receive
benefits from this Offering.
Our revolving credit facility bears interest at a variable rate,
at our option, based upon a base rate of (i) one-, two-,
three- or six-month LIBOR or (ii) the higher of the
lenders prime rate and the federal funds rate plus 0.5%,
plus, in each case, a spread based upon our total leverage. As
of March 31, 2005, the balance outstanding on our revolving
credit facility bore interest at a weighted average rate of
4.31% per annum. This facility will mature in August 2007.
Pending application of any portion of the net Offering proceeds,
we will invest it in interest-bearing accounts and short-term,
interest-bearing securities as is consistent with our intention
to maintain our qualification for taxation as a REIT. Such
investments may include, for example, obligations of the
Government National Mortgage Association, other government and
governmental agency securities, certificates of deposit and
interest-bearing bank deposits.
33
DISTRIBUTION POLICY
We are required to distribute 90% of our REIT taxable income,
excluding capital gains, on an annual basis to qualify as a REIT
for federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, we intend to make,
but are not contractually bound to make, regular quarterly
distributions to common stockholders and PIU holders. All such
distributions are at the discretion of our board of directors.
We may be required to use borrowings under our credit facility,
if necessary and to the extent permitted thereunder, to meet
REIT distribution requirements and qualify as a REIT and
otherwise fund the remaining amounts of any distributions. The
board of directors considers market factors and our performance
in addition to REIT requirements in determining distribution
levels.
On May 11, 2005, we declared a distribution per share of
common stock of $0.3375, which was paid on May 31, 2005 to
all common stockholders of record as of May 19, 2005. At
the same time, we paid an equivalent amount per unit to holders
of PIUs and restricted stock awards. These distributions equate
to an annualized amount of $1.35 per share and represent a
6.1% yield based on the June 17, 2005 closing share price
of $21.97 per share.
If we do not generate revenues from our properties and third
party development and management services sufficient to meet our
operating expenses, including debt service and capital
expenditures, our cash flow will decrease. This could have an
adverse effect on our ability to pay distributions to our
stockholders. We may be required to use borrowings under the
credit facility, if necessary, to meet REIT distribution
requirements and qualify as a REIT. However, our revolving
credit facility contains covenants that restrict our ability to
pay distributions or other amounts to our stockholders unless
certain tests are satisfied and also contains certain provisions
restricting our ability to draw funds under the facility. All
distributions are at the discretion of our board of directors.
The board of directors considers market factors and our
performance in addition to REIT requirements in determining
distribution levels. To the extent we use our working capital or
borrowings under our revolving credit facility to fund our
distributions, our financial condition and our ability to access
these funds for other purposes, such as the expansion of our
business or future distributions, could be adversely affected.
Any such distributions from working capital or borrowings may
represent a return of capital for federal income tax purposes.
We expect that approximately 60% of our 2005 annual distribution
will represent a return of capital for federal income tax
purposes.
Availability under our revolving credit facility is limited to
an aggregate borrowing base amount equal to the
lesser of (i) 65% of the value of certain of our
properties, calculated as set forth in the credit facility, and
(ii) the adjusted net operating income from these
properties divided by a formula amount. As of March 31,
2005, the borrowing base amount was $65.1 million.
Our revolving credit facility contains customary affirmative and
negative covenants and also contains financial covenants that,
among other things, require us to maintain certain minimum
ratios of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization) for interest expense and fixed
charges. Before June 30, 2006, we may not pay distributions
that exceed 100% of our funds from operations for any four
consecutive quarters. After June 30, 2006, we may not pay
distributions that exceed 95% of our funds from operations for
any four consecutive quarters. The financial covenants also
include consolidated net worth and leverage ratio tests. As of
March 31, 2005, we were in compliance with all such
covenants.
Federal income tax law requires that a REIT distribute annually
at least 90% of its REIT taxable income determined without
regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding net capital
gains, and that it pay tax at regular corporate rates to the
extent that it annually distributes less than 100% of its net
taxable income, including capital gains. For more information,
please see Federal Income Tax Considerations. We
anticipate that our estimated cash available for distribution
will exceed the annual distribution requirements applicable to
REITs. However, under some circumstances, we may be required to
pay distributions in excess of cash available for distribution
in order to meet these distribution requirements and we may need
to borrow funds to pay the excess portion.
34
PRICE RANGE OF COMMON STOCK
Our common stock is listed and traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol ACC. As of June 17,
2005, there were approximately 100 holders of record of our
common stock. Our common stock commenced trading on
August 17, 2004. The following table sets forth, for the
periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share for
our common stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High | |
|
Low | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third quarter (August 17 through September 30)
|
|
$ |
19.05 |
|
|
$ |
17.00 |
|
Fourth quarter
|
|
|
23.06 |
|
|
|
18.50 |
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First quarter
|
|
$ |
22.75 |
|
|
$ |
19.09 |
|
Second quarter (through June 17)
|
|
|
22.45 |
|
|
|
19.04 |
|
On June 17, 2005, the closing price of our common stock on
the New York Stock Exchange was $21.97 per share.
35
CAPITALIZATION
The following table sets forth our capitalization as of
March 31, 2005 on an actual basis and on a pro forma basis
to give effect to this Offering and the use of the net proceeds
from this Offering as set forth in Use of Proceeds.
You should read this table in conjunction with Use of
Proceeds, Selected Financial Data,
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Liquidity and Capital
Resources and our consolidated financial statements and
the notes to our financial statements appearing elsewhere in
this prospectus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
As of March 31, 2005 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Actual | |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
6,425 |
|
|
$ |
42,038 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving credit facility
|
|
$ |
33,600 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Mortgage, loans and bonds payable
|
|
|
275,829 |
|
|
|
275,829 |
|
|
Unamortized debt premiums
|
|
|
4,956 |
|
|
|
4,956 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt
|
|
|
314,385 |
|
|
|
280,785 |
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
2,649 |
|
|
|
2,649 |
|
Stockholders Equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $.01 par value, 800,000,000 shares
authorized, 12,615,000 shares issued and outstanding
actual, 16,015,000 shares issued and outstanding pro forma
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
135,150 |
|
|
|
204,329 |
|
|
Accumulated earnings and distributions
|
|
|
5,717 |
|
|
|
5,717 |
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
387 |
|
|
|
387 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
141,380 |
|
|
|
210,593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization
|
|
$ |
458,414 |
|
|
$ |
494,027 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The following tables set forth our summary selected financial
and operating data on a consolidated historical basis for us and
on a combined historical basis for our Predecessor Entities.
Results for the year ended December 31, 2004 represent the
combined historical data for our Predecessor Entities for the
period from January 1, 2004 to August 16, 2004 as well
as our consolidated results for the period from August 17,
2004 to December 31, 2004. Our consolidated results reflect
our post-IPO structure as a REIT, including the operations of
the TRS, which was not present in the operations of our
Predecessor Entities. The combined historical financial
information for our Predecessor Entities includes:
|
|
|
|
|
the development and management service operations and real
estate operations of American Campus Communities, L.L.C., one of
the Predecessor Entities; |
|
|
|
the real estate operations of RAP SHP and its subsidiaries,
including The Village at Riverside, which we ceased owning after
the completion of the IPO, and Coyote Village, which was
transferred to Weatherford College in April 2004; and |
|
|
|
the joint venture properties and operations of American
Campus Titan, LLC and American Campus Titan II,
LLC. |
You should read the following summary selected financial data in
conjunction with the consolidated and combined historical
financial statements and the related notes and with
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations, which are included
elsewhere in this prospectus.
Our unaudited historical consolidated balance sheet information
as of March 31, 2005 and consolidated and combined
statements of operations for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 and 2004 are derived from our unaudited
historical combined financial statements, which we believe
include all adjustments (consisting of only normal recurring
adjustments) necessary to present fairly the information set
forth therein. Our results of operations for the interim period
ended March 31, 2005 are not necessarily indicative of the
results to be obtained for the full fiscal year.
The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated and combined
statements of operations for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 and for the year ended December 31,
2004 are presented as if we had acquired Exchange at Gainesville
(acquired March 2005), City Parc at Fry Street (acquired March
2005) and the five-property Proctor Portfolio (acquired February
2005) as of January 1, 2004. It was also assumed that our
IPO transactions all had occurred as of January 1, 2004.
The pro forma adjustments include the related repayment of
certain debt and the acquisition of minority ownership of
certain assets. All such transactions are reflected on our
March 31, 2005 consolidated balance sheet, which is
included elsewhere in this prospectus.
37
The following summary unaudited financial data should be read
together with the pro forma condensed consolidated and combined
statements of operations and our historical financial statements
and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. The pro
forma condensed consolidated and combined statements of
operations are unaudited and are not necessarily indicative of
what the actual results of operations would have been had we
acquired the properties or consummated the IPO as of
January 1, 2004, nor do they purport to represent the
results of our operations for future periods. While such
unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated and combined
financial statements are based on adjustments that we deem
appropriate and that were factually supported based on currently
available data, the pro forma information may not be indicative
of what actual results would have been, nor does this
information present our financial results or condition for
future periods.
Statements of Operations Information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands, except share and per share data) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Three Months Ended | |
|
|
|
|
March 31, | |
|
Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Historical | |
|
|
|
Historical | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
| |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
(Unaudited) | |
Revenues
|
|
$ |
19,541 |
|
|
$ |
15,352 |
|
|
$ |
22,325 |
|
|
$ |
60,823 |
|
|
$ |
57,136 |
|
|
$ |
52,131 |
|
|
$ |
40,752 |
|
|
$ |
25,126 |
|
|
$ |
76,623 |
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
2,311 |
|
|
|
1,585 |
|
|
|
2,646 |
|
|
|
(1,572 |
) |
|
|
(967 |
) |
|
|
(2,753 |
) |
|
|
(3,300 |
) |
|
|
(1,869 |
) |
|
|
(1,785 |
) |
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) income attributable to discontinued operations
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (loss) from disposition of real estate
|
|
|
5,883 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
8,192 |
|
|
|
1,530 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,339 |
) |
|
|
(944 |
) |
|
|
(2,139 |
) |
|
|
(2,939 |
) |
|
|
(1,872 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Per Share and Distribution Data:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per diluted share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
0.19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(.14 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations
|
|
|
0.46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
0.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash distributions declared per share/unit
|
|
|
0.3375 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1651 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash distributions declared
|
|
|
4,277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
As of | |
|
As of December 31, | |
|
|
March 31, | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
486,487 |
|
|
$ |
367,628 |
|
|
$ |
330,566 |
|
|
$ |
307,658 |
|
|
$ |
295,637 |
|
|
$ |
217,151 |
|
Debt
|
|
|
314,385 |
|
|
|
201,014 |
|
|
|
267,518 |
|
|
|
249,706 |
|
|
|
234,449 |
|
|
|
178,442 |
|
Stockholders and Predecessor entities owners
equity(2)
|
|
|
141,380 |
|
|
|
138,229 |
|
|
|
27,658 |
|
|
|
35,526 |
|
|
|
40,572 |
|
|
|
25,609 |
|
Selected Owned Property Information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned properties
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
Units
|
|
|
5,163 |
|
|
|
4,317 |
|
|
|
3,567 |
|
|
|
3,459 |
|
|
|
3,377 |
|
|
|
2,781 |
|
|
Beds
|
|
|
15,593 |
|
|
|
12,955 |
|
|
|
10,546 |
|
|
|
10,336 |
|
|
|
10,027 |
|
|
|
8,232 |
|
|
Occupancy
|
|
|
96.0 |
% |
|
|
97.1 |
% |
|
|
91.5 |
% |
|
|
91.0 |
% |
|
|
93.5 |
% |
|
|
93.3 |
% |
38
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Three Months | |
|
|
|
|
Ended | |
|
|
|
|
March 31, | |
|
Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow Information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$ |
5,713 |
|
|
$ |
5,237 |
|
|
$ |
17,293 |
|
|
$ |
6,862 |
|
|
$ |
7,647 |
|
|
$ |
5,338 |
|
|
$ |
3,577 |
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(58,853 |
) |
|
|
(19,213 |
) |
|
|
(63,621 |
) |
|
|
(33,738 |
) |
|
|
(21,678 |
) |
|
|
(68,540 |
) |
|
|
(87,652 |
) |
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
|
55,515 |
|
|
|
13,004 |
|
|
|
45,151 |
|
|
|
21,537 |
|
|
|
11,646 |
|
|
|
72,832 |
|
|
|
84,215 |
|
Funds From Operations (FFO):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
8,192 |
|
|
$ |
1,530 |
|
|
$ |
(1,339 |
) |
|
$ |
(944 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,139 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,939 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,872 |
) |
|
Minority interests
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
(Gain) loss from disposition of real estate
|
|
|
(5,883 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(295 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate related depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
3,326 |
|
|
|
2,277 |
|
|
|
10,009 |
|
|
|
8,937 |
|
|
|
8,233 |
|
|
|
6,807 |
|
|
|
4,188 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funds from operations(3)(4)
|
|
$ |
5,722 |
|
|
$ |
3,786 |
|
|
$ |
8,609 |
|
|
$ |
7,961 |
|
|
$ |
5,769 |
|
|
$ |
3,758 |
|
|
$ |
2,296 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Represents per share information and cash distributions declared
during the period from August 17, 2004 through
March 31, 2005. |
|
(2) |
Information as of March 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004
reflects our stockholders equity as a result of the IPO
while previous years reflect the equity of the owners of our
Predecessor Entities. |
|
(3) |
As defined by the National Association of Real Estate Investment
Trusts or NAREIT, funds from operations or FFO represents income
(loss) before allocation to minority interest (computed in
accordance with GAAP), excluding gains (or losses) from sales of
property, plus real estate related depreciation and amortization
(excluding amortization of loan origination costs) and after
adjustments for unconsolidated partnerships and joint ventures.
We present FFO because we consider it an important supplemental
measure of our operating performance and believe it is
frequently used by securities analysts, investors and other
interested parties in the evaluation of REITs, many of which
present FFO when reporting their results. FFO is intended to
exclude GAAP historical cost depreciation and amortization of
real estate and related assets, which assumes that the value of
real estate diminishes ratably over time. Historically, however,
real estate values have risen or fallen with market conditions.
Because FFO excludes depreciation and amortization unique to
real estate, gains and losses from property dispositions and
extraordinary items, it provides a performance measure that,
when compared year over year, reflects the impact to operations
from trends in occupancy rates, rental rates, operating costs,
development activities and interest costs, providing perspective
not immediately apparent from net income. |
|
|
|
We compute FFO in accordance with standards established by the
Board of Governors of NAREIT in its March 1995 White Paper (as
amended in November 1999 and April 2002), which may differ from
the methodology for calculating FFO utilized by other equity
REITs and, accordingly, may not be comparable to such other
REITs. Further, FFO does not represent amounts available for
managements discretionary use because of needed capital
replacement or expansion, debt service obligations or other
commitments and uncertainties. FFO should not be considered as
an alternative to net income (loss) (computed in accordance with
GAAP) as an indicator of our financial performance or to cash
flow from operating activities (computed in accordance with
GAAP) as an indicator of our liquidity, nor is it indicative of
funds available to fund our cash needs, including our ability to
pay dividends or make distributions. |
|
|
(4) |
When considering our FFO, we believe it is also a meaningful
measure of our performance to exclude certain revenues and
expenses from our on-campus participating properties. See
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of OperationsFunds from
Operations. |
39
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with
our financial statements, related notes and other financial
information appearing elsewhere in this prospectus.
Overview
|
|
|
Our Company and Our Business |
We are one of the largest owners, managers and developers of
high quality student housing properties in the United States in
terms of beds owned, managed and developed. As of March 31,
2005, our total owned and managed portfolio included
43 properties that represented approximately 26,900 beds in
approximately 9,700 units. We are a fully integrated,
self-managed and self-administered equity REIT with expertise in
the acquisition, design, financing, development, construction
management, leasing and management of student housing properties.
As of March 31, 2005, our property portfolio consisted of
24 high-quality student housing properties containing
15,600 beds in approximately 5,200 units consisting of
19 off-campus student housing properties within close
proximity to 22 colleges and universities in nine states,
and five on-campus participating properties owned though
ground/facility leases with the respective university systems.
These communities contain modern housing units, offer
resort-style amenities and are supported by a classic resident
assistant system and other student-oriented programming.
We also provide third party services to colleges and
universities for the management and development of on-campus
student housing. We manage 19 properties on a third party
basis primarily for colleges, universities and financial
institutions. These third party managed properties contain
approximately 11,300 beds in approximately
4,500 units. We provided development and construction
management services for 13 of these properties. Our third party
management services are typically provided pursuant to
multi-year management contracts that have an initial term that
ranges from two to five years.
Our third party development and construction management services
clients for student housing properties that include
universities, charitable foundations and others. We have
generally developed student housing properties for these clients
and, a majority of the time, have been retained to manage these
properties following their opening. As of March 31, 2005,
development fees of approximately $5.1 million remained to
be earned by us with respect to contracted third party
development projects. The following table provides certain
information with respect to third party properties under
development as of March 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Total | |
|
|
|
Balance to be | |
|
|
|
|
Contractual | |
|
Fees Previously | |
|
Earned and | |
|
|
|
|
Fee | |
|
Earned and | |
|
Recognized in | |
|
Scheduled | |
Property |
|
Amount | |
|
Recognized | |
|
2005 and 2006 | |
|
Completion | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Saint Leo University Phase II
|
|
$ |
375 |
|
|
$ |
199 |
|
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
|
Aug 2005 |
|
Vista del Campo Phase II
|
|
|
3,501 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
3,333 |
|
|
|
Aug 2006 |
|
West Virginia University
pre development services
|
|
|
400 |
(1) |
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
Jun 2005 |
|
Fenn Tower Renovation
|
|
|
1,509 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1,499 |
|
|
|
Aug 2006 |
|
Lamar University Dining Hall
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
Nov 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
5,895 |
|
|
$ |
769 |
|
|
$ |
5,126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Contractual fee amount is shown net of approximately
$0.6 million of costs anticipated to be incurred to
complete the project. |
In addition, as of March 31, 2005, we have been selected to
perform construction administration services related to a
student housing property for West Virginia University. These
services provide a net construction administration fee of
approximately $0.3 million and are anticipated to commence
in August
40
2005. We have also received a Notice of Intent to
Award from Arizona State University indicating that we
have been selected to provide design, development and management
of student housing on the Tempe Campus. In addition, we have
also been selected by Hope International University in
Fullerton, California, to design and oversee a comprehensive
redevelopment of its campus, including the development of
residence halls, student apartments and faculty housing. Subject
to the successful structuring and closing of the Arizona State
and Hope transactions, we anticipate that the projects will
commence construction during the second or third quarter of 2006.
The net operating income of our student housing communities,
which is one of the financial measures that we use to evaluate
community performance, is affected by the demand and supply
dynamics within our markets, which drives our rental rates and
occupancy levels, and is affected by our ability to control
operating costs. Our overall operating performance is also
impacted by the general availability and cost of capital and the
performance of our newly developed and acquired student housing
communities as to which there may be little or no operating
history. We seek to create long-term stockholder value by
accessing capital on cost effective terms, deploying that
capital to develop, redevelop and acquire student housing
communities and selling communities when they no longer meet our
long-term investment strategy and when market conditions are
favorable.
We believe that the ownership and operation of student housing
communities in close proximity to selected colleges and
universities present attractive investment opportunities for us
due to a number of factors positively impacting the student
housing market in the United States today. We intend to continue
to execute our strategy of acquiring and developing high
quality, modern student housing communities in close proximity
to major universities, which feature a differentiated product
offering, with locations in student housing sub-markets that
have barriers to entry. In addition, our strategy includes
identifying properties with barriers to entry that are projected
to experience significant increases in enrollment and/or are
under-serviced in terms of existing on and/or off-campus student
housing. While fee revenue from our third party development,
construction management and property management services allows
us to develop strong and key relationships with colleges and
universities, this area has over time become a smaller portion
of our operations due to the continued focus on and growth of
our owned property portfolio. Nevertheless, we believe these
services continue to provide synergies with respect to our
ability to identify, close and successfully operate student
housing properties.
In March 2005, we acquired an off-campus student housing
property (Exchange at Gainesville, to be renamed) consisting of
1,044 beds in 396 units located near the University of
Florida campus in Gainesville, Florida, for a purchase price of
$47.5 million. In addition, we anticipate spending
approximately $1.1 million in closing and other external
transaction costs, including capital expenditures necessary to
bring the property up to our operating standards. We also
anticipate spending approximately $45,000 of initial integration
expenses to bring the property up to our operating standards. We
entered into a fixed-rate mortgage loan in the amount of
$38.8 million in connection with this acquisition.
In March 2005, we acquired an off-campus student housing
property (City Parc at Fry Street) consisting of 418 beds in
136 units located near the University of North Texas in
Denton, Texas, for a purchase price of $19.2 million. In
addition, we anticipate spending $0.4 million in closing
and other external transaction costs, including capital
expenditures necessary to bring the property up to our operating
standards. We also anticipate spending approximately $35,000 of
initial integration expenses to bring the property up to our
operating standards. We assumed approximately $11.8 million
of fixed-rate mortgage debt in connection with this acquisition.
In February 2005, we acquired a portfolio of five off-campus
student housing properties (the Proctor Portfolio)
for a purchase price of approximately $53.5 million. Four
of the properties are located in Tallahassee, Florida and one
property is located in Gainesville, Florida. These five
communities contained 1,656 beds in 446 units. We
anticipate spending approximately $1.7 million in closing
and other external transaction costs, including capital
expenditures necessary to bring the property up to our operating
41
standards. We also anticipate spending approximately
$0.1 million of initial integration expenses to bring the
property up to our operating standards. We assumed approximately
$35.4 million of fixed-rate mortgage debt in connection
with this acquisition.
In November 2004, California State University
San Bernardino exercised its option to purchase the
University Village at San Bernardino off-campus student
housing property for an aggregate purchase price of
approximately $28.3 million. This transaction was
consummated in January 2005, resulting in net proceeds of
approximately $28.1 million. The resulting gain on
disposition of approximately $5.9 million is included in
discontinued operations in the accompanying consolidated
statement of operations for the three months ended
March 31, 2005.
|
|
|
Owned Development Activities |
We are currently in the process of constructing one owned
off-campus property and are in pre-development of two additional
off-campus owned properties. We are also currently constructing
one owned on-campus participating property. We anticipate that
the total pre-development and development cost relating to these
activities will be approximately $150.3 million. As of
March 31, 2005, we have incurred development costs of
approximately $26.1 million in connection with these
properties, with the remaining development costs estimated at
$124.2 million. The activities are described below:
We acquired a land parcel near the State University of New
York Buffalo and commenced development of an owned
off-campus property containing 828 beds in 269 units. Total
development cost is estimated to be $36.1 million. This
property is currently in the final stages of construction and is
pre-leased to 100% occupancy for its upcoming opening in August
2005. As of March 31, 2005, the project was approximately
68% complete, and we anticipate incurring remaining development
costs of approximately $14.8 million.
We are in the later stages of design and pre-development on two
owned off-campus properties with total anticipated development
costs of approximately $97.2 million. One project is
located in Newark, New Jersey near the campuses of the New
Jersey Institute of Technology, Rutgers University and Essex
County Community College. We anticipate development costs on
this property to total approximately $62.3 million and plan
to own this property through a joint venture that we will
control with Titan Investments, a partner with whom we have
previously developed four off-campus student housing properties.
As of March 31, 2005, we have incurred approximately
$0.5 million of pre-development costs related to this
project. The second property is located in close proximity to
Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, and we
estimate the total development costs on this property to be
approximately $34.9 million. Both developments are
currently progressing through their respective entitlement and
municipal approval processes and are contingent upon receiving
all necessary approvals. Depending upon the timeliness of these
approvals, we plan to commence construction in Summer of 2005
for an August 2006 completion or to commence construction in
Summer of 2006 for an August 2007 completion.
Our Cullen Oaks Phase II on-campus participating property,
located on the campus of the University of Houston, is currently
under construction with total development costs estimated to be
$17.0 million. The project is scheduled to be completed in
August 2005 in connection with the 2005/2006 academic year. As
of March 31, 2005, the project was approximately 23%
complete, and we anticipate incurring remaining development
costs of approximately $12.7 million.
|
|
|
Structure of On-Campus Participating Properties |
At our on-campus participating properties, the subject
universities own both the land and improvements. We then have a
leasehold interest under a ground/facility lease. Under the
lease, we receive an annual distribution representing 50% of
these properties net cash available for distribution after
payment of operating expenses (which includes our management
fees), debt service (which includes repayment of principal) and
capital expenditures. We also manage these properties under
multi-year management agreements and are paid a management fee
representing 5% of receipts.
42
We do not have access to the cash flows and working capital of
these participating properties except for the annual net cash
distribution described above. Additionally, a substantial
portion of these properties cash flow is dedicated to
capital reserves required under the applicable property
indebtedness and to the amortization of such indebtedness. These
amounts do not increase our economic interest in these
properties since our interest, including our right to share in
the net cash available for distribution from the properties,
terminates upon the amortization of their indebtedness. Our
economic interest in these properties is therefore limited to
our interest in the annual net cash distribution described above
and management fees from these properties. Accordingly, when
considering these properties contribution to our
operations, we focus upon our share of these properties
net cash available for distribution and the management fees that
we receive from these properties, rather than upon their
contribution to our gross revenues and expenses for financial
reporting purposes.
The following table reflects the actual contribution to our
consolidated/combined net income of our on-campus participating
properties for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and
2002 and the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004.
These results include the contribution of certain on-campus
participating properties that were developed by us and by
pre-arrangement transferred to the university after we had
secured the necessary financing:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Three Months Ended | |
|
|
|
|
March 31, | |
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues
|
|
$ |
5,491 |
|
|
$ |
5,608 |
|
|
$ |
17,730 |
|
|
$ |
17,002 |
|
|
$ |
16,670 |
|
Direct operating expenses(1)
|
|
|
1,722 |
|
|
|
1,785 |
|
|
|
7,621 |
|
|
|
7,517 |
|
|
|
7,273 |
|
Amortization
|
|
|
879 |
|
|
|
854 |
|
|
|
3,532 |
|
|
|
3,271 |
|
|
|
3,152 |
|
Amortization of deferred financing costs
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
Ground/facility lease expense
|
|
|
212 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
846 |
|
|
|
584 |
|
|
|
664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating income
|
|
|
2,632 |
|
|
|
2,728 |
|
|
|
5,491 |
|
|
|
5,450 |
|
|
|
5,421 |
|
Interest income
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(1,347 |
) |
|
|
(1,449 |
) |
|
|
(5,547 |
) |
|
|
(5,293 |
) |
|
|
(5,291 |
) |
Other nonoperating income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income(2)
|
|
$ |
1,310 |
|
|
$ |
1,285 |
|
|
$ |
231 |
|
|
$ |
187 |
|
|
$ |
197 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Excludes the property management fees described below. This
expense and the corresponding fee revenue recognized by us have
been eliminated in consolidation/combination. Also excludes
allocation of expenses related to corporate management and
oversight. |
|
(2) |
Includes the results of Coyote Village, which was transferred to
Weatherford College in April 2004. Operations at this property
are classified as discontinued operations for all relevant
periods in the consolidated and combined financial statements
included elsewhere in this prospectus. Excludes income taxes
associated with these properties, which are owned by our TRS
subsequent to the IPO. |
We earned $0.9 million, $0.8 million and
$0.8 million in management fees under these arrangements
for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002,
respectively, and $0.3 million for each of the three-month
periods ended March 31, 2005 and 2004. Additionally, our
share of the net cash flows of these properties for the years
ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 was
$0.8 million, $0.5 million and $0.7 million,
respectively, and $0.2 million for each of the three-month
periods ended March 31, 2005 and 2004.
|
|
|
Our Recent Formation as a REIT |
We were formed to succeed the business of our predecessor
entities (the Predecessor Entities), which were a
combination of real estate entities under common ownership and
voting control collectively doing business as American Campus
Communities, L.L.C. and Affiliated Student Housing Properties,
entities
43
engaged in the student housing business since 1993. We were
incorporated in Maryland on March 9, 2004. Additionally,
American Campus Communities Operating Partnership, L.P., our
operating partnership (the Operating Partnership),
was formed and our taxable REIT subsidiary (TRS) was
incorporated in Maryland on July 14, 2004 and
August 17, 2004, respectively, each in anticipation of our
initial public offering of common stock (the IPO).
The IPO was consummated on August 17, 2004, concurrent with
the consummation of various formation transactions, and
consisted of the sale of 12,100,000 shares of our common
stock at a price per share of $17.50, generating gross proceeds
of approximately $211.8 million. The aggregate proceeds to
us, net of the underwriters discount and offering costs,
were approximately $189.4 million. In connection with the
exercise of the underwriters over-allotment option on
September 15, 2004, we issued an additional
515,000 shares of common stock at the IPO price per share,
generating an additional $9.0 million of gross proceeds and
$8.4 million in net proceeds after the underwriters
discount. Our operations commenced on August 17, 2004 after
completion of the IPO and the formation transactions, and are
conducted substantially through the Operating Partnership and
its wholly owned subsidiaries, including the TRS.
In connection with the IPO, we completed the following formation
transactions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redeemed 100% of the ownership interests of the Predecessor
Entities in RAP Student Housing Properties L.L.C. (RAP
SHP) for approximately $80.1 million. |
|
|
|
|
Acquired the minority ownership interest of Titan
Investments II (Titan) in certain owned
off-campus properties in exchange for approximately
$5.7 million. |
|
|
|
Repaid certain construction and permanent indebtedness totaling
approximately $105.5 million. |
|
|
|
Distributed The Village at Riverside and certain other non-core
assets to the Predecessor Entities. |
|
|
|
|
Entered into a $75 million senior secured revolving credit
facility under which our ability to borrow is subject to certain
conditions and the satisfaction of specified financial
covenants, which credit facility was subsequently amended. |
|
Our Predecessor Entities provided certain services to residents
that we are not permitted to provide under IRS regulations
relating to REITs. Therefore, in conjunction with our formation,
we restructured our operations relative to the provision of
these services. Subsequent to the commencement of our operations
as a REIT, these resident services have been provided by our
TRS, resulting in lower rental revenue and higher resident
services revenue.
Critical Accounting Policies
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States
(GAAP) requires management to make estimates and
assumptions in certain circumstances that affect amounts
reported in our consolidated and combined financial statements
and related notes. In preparing these financial statements,
management has utilized all available information, including its
past history, industry standards and the current economic
environment, among other factors, in forming its estimates and
judgments of certain amounts included in the consolidated and
combined financial statements, giving due consideration to
materiality. It is possible that the ultimate outcome
anticipated by management in formulating its estimates may not
be realized. Application of the critical accounting policies
below involves the exercise of judgment and use of assumptions
as to future uncertainties and, as a result, actual results
could differ from these estimates. In addition, other companies
in similar businesses may utilize different estimation policies
and methodologies, which may impact the comparability of our
results of operations and financial condition to those companies.
|
|
|
Allocation of Fair Value to Acquired Properties |
The price that we pay to acquire a property is impacted by many
factors, including the condition of the buildings and
improvements, the occupancy of the building, favorable or
unfavorable financing, and numerous other factors. Accordingly,
we are required to make subjective assessments to allocate the
44
purchase price paid to acquire investments in real estate among
the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on our
estimate of the fair values of such assets and liabilities. This
includes, among other items, determining the value of the
buildings and improvements, land, in-place tenant leases, and
any debt assumed from the seller. Each of these estimates
requires a great deal of judgment and some of the estimates
involve complex calculations. Our calculation methodology is
summarized in Note 2 to our consolidated and combined
financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus.
These allocation assessments have a direct impact on our results
of operations because if we were to allocate more value to land
there would be no depreciation with respect to such amount or if
we were to allocate more value to the buildings as opposed to
allocating to the value of in-place tenant leases, this amount
would be recognized as an expense over a much longer period of
time, since the amounts allocated to buildings are depreciated
over the estimated lives of the buildings whereas amounts
allocated to in-place tenant leases are amortized over the terms
of the leases (generally less than one year).
|
|
|
Revenue and Cost Recognition of Third Party Development
and Management Services |
Costs associated with the pursuit of third party development and
management service contracts are expensed as incurred until such
time as we have been notified of a contract award or otherwise
believe that it is probable a contract will be awarded. At such
time, the reimbursable portion of such costs are recorded as
receivables with the remaining portion deferred and expensed in
relation to the revenues earned on such contracts. Development
revenues are recognized and related costs (including the costs
of our development personnel involved in the project) deferred
and expensed using the percentage of completion method as
determined by construction costs incurred relative to the total
estimated construction costs. Fees received in excess of those
recognized are reflected as deferred development and
construction revenue. Revenues recognized in excess of amounts
received are included in other assets. Incentive fees are
recognized when the project is complete and the incentive amount
has been confirmed by an independent third party.
Third party management fees are generally received and
recognized on a monthly basis and are computed as a percentage
of property receipts, revenues or a fixed monthly amount, in
accordance with the applicable management contract. Incentive
management fees are recognized when the contractual criteria
have been met.
|
|
|
Student Housing Rental Revenue Recognition and Accounts
Receivable |
Student housing rental revenue is recognized on a straight-line
basis over the term of the contract. Ancillary and other
property related income is recognized in the period earned. In
estimating the collectibility of our accounts receivable, we
analyze specific resident receivables, historical bad debts, and
current economic trends. These estimates have a direct impact on
our net income, as an increase in our allowance for doubtful
accounts reduces our net income.
|
|
|
Long-Lived Assets-Impairment |
On a periodic basis, management is required to assess whether
there are any indicators that the value of our real estate
properties may be impaired. A propertys value is
considered impaired if managements estimate of the
aggregate future cash flows (undiscounted and without interest
charges) to be generated by the property are less than the
carrying value of the property. These estimates of cash flows
consider factors such as expected future operating income,
trends and prospects, as well as the effects of demand,
competition and other factors. To the extent impairment has
occurred, the loss will be measured as the excess of the
carrying amount of the property over the fair value of the
property, thereby reducing our net income.
45
|
|
|
Long-Lived Assets-Held For Sale |
Long-lived assets to be disposed of are classified as held for
sale in the period in which all of the following criteria are
met:
|
|
|
|
|
Management, having the authority to approve the action, commits
to a plan to sell the asset; |
|
|
|
The asset is available for immediate sale in its present
condition subject only to terms that are usual and customary for
sales of such assets; |
|
|
|
An active program to locate a buyer and other actions required
to complete the plan to sell the asset have been initiated; |
|
|
|
The sale of the asset is probable, and transfer of the asset is
expected to qualify for recognition as a completed sale, within
one year; |
|
|
|
The asset is being actively marketed for sale at a price that is
reasonable in relation to its current fair value; and |
|
|
|
Actions required to complete the plan indicate that it is
unlikely that significant changes to the plan will be made or
that the plan will be withdrawn. |
When material, the results of operations of a property that has
either been disposed of, distributed, or is classified as held
for sale is reported in discontinued operations if both of the
following conditions are met: (a) the operations and cash
flows of the component have been (or will be) eliminated from
our ongoing operations as a result of the disposal transaction
and (b) we will not have any significant continuing
involvement in the operations of the component after the
disposal transaction.
|
|
|
Construction Property Savings and Fire Proceeds |
A Predecessor Entity was entitled to any savings in the budgeted
completion cost of three of our owned off-campus construction
properties that were completed in Fall 2004. Additionally, upon
completion of construction at University Village at TU, which
occurred during Fall 2004, our Predecessor Entities received a
construction guarantee fee, which was paid from the remaining
construction budget. In November 2004, our Predecessor Entities
also received insurance proceeds that we received in connection
with the fire that occurred at the University Village at Fresno.
These payments were accounted for as equity distributions.
Results of Operations
For a discussion of pro forma results of operations for the
three months ended March 31, 2005 and for the year ended
December 31, 2004, see Notes (A) through (G) to
our unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated and combined
statements of operations included elsewhere in this prospectus.
46
Comparison of the Three Months Ended March 31, 2005
and March 31, 2004
The following table presents our results of operations for the
three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, including the
amount (in thousands) and percentage change in these results
between the two periods:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
Change ($) | |
|
Change (%) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned off-campus properties
|
|
$ |
12,489 |
|
|
$ |
7,989 |
|
|
$ |
4,500 |
|
|
|
56.3 |
% |
|
On-campus participating properties
|
|
|
5,493 |
|
|
|
5,293 |
|
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
Third party development and management services
|
|
|
1,355 |
|
|
|
2,070 |
|
|
|
(715 |
) |
|
|
(34.5 |
)% |
|
Resident services
|
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
19,541 |
|
|
|
15,352 |
|
|
|
4,189 |
|
|
|
27.3 |
% |
Operating Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned off-campus properties
|
|
|
5,136 |
|
|
|
3,459 |
|
|
|
1,677 |
|
|
|
48.5 |
% |
|
On-campus participating properties
|
|
|
1,875 |
|
|
|
1,800 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
4.2 |
% |
|
Third party development and management services
|
|
|
1,464 |
|
|
|
1,264 |
|
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
15.8 |
% |
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
1,364 |
|
|
|
453 |
|
|
|
911 |
|
|
|
201.1 |
% |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
3,424 |
|
|
|
2,259 |
|
|
|
1,165 |
|
|
|
51.6 |
% |
|
Ground/facility leases
|
|
|
212 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
50.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
13,475 |
|
|
|
9,376 |
|
|
|
4,099 |
|
|
|
43.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
6,066 |
|
|
|
5,976 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
% |
Nonoperating income and (expenses):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
346.2 |
% |
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(3,808 |
) |
|
|
(4,281 |
) |
|
|
473 |
|
|
|
(11.0 |
)% |
|
Amortization of deferred financing costs
|
|
|
(246 |
) |
|
|
(144 |
) |
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
70.8 |
% |
|
Other nonoperating income
|
|
|
430 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
430 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total nonoperating expenses
|
|
|
(3,566 |
) |
|
|
(4,412 |
) |
|
|
846 |
|
|
|
(19.2 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income tax provision, minority interests, and
discontinued operations
|
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
|
1,564 |
|
|
|
936 |
|
|
|
59.8 |
% |
Income tax provision
|
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
(100.0 |
)% |
Minority interests
|
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(108 |
) |
|
|
(514.3 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
2,311 |
|
|
|
1,585 |
|
|
|
726 |
|
|
|
45.8 |
% |
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss attributable to discontinued operations
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
(96.4 |
)% |
|
Gain from disposition of real estate
|
|
|
5,883 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,883 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total discontinued operations
|
|
|
5,881 |
|
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
5,936 |
|
|
|
10,792.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$ |
8,192 |
|
|
$ |
1,530 |
|
|
$ |
6,662 |
|
|
|
435.4 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned Off-Campus Properties Operations |
Revenues from our owned off-campus properties for the three
months ended March 31, 2005 compared with the same period
in 2004 increased by $4.5 million primarily due to the
completion of construction and opening of two properties in
August 2004, the acquisition of seven properties during the
first quarter of 2005 and higher first quarter occupancy at a
majority of the same store properties operated during both
periods, as described below. Operating expenses increased
approximately $1.7 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 compared with the same period in 2004.
University Village at San Bernardino, which also opened in
August of 2004, was sold in January 2005 and is therefore not
reflected in operating revenues and expenses but is included in
discontinued operations for the relevant periods.
47
New Property Operations. In August 2004, we completed
construction of and opened a 406-bed property serving California
State University, Fresno and a 749-bed property serving Temple
University. Additionally, we acquired seven properties
containing 3,118 beds at various times during the first quarter
of 2005, located in Florida (Gainesville and Tallahassee) and
Denton, Texas. These new properties contributed
$3.8 million of additional revenues and $1.6 million
of additional operating expenses in the first quarter of 2005 as
compared to the first quarter of 2004.
Same Store Property Operations (Excluding New Property
Operations). We had nine properties containing 5,971 beds
which were operating during both the three-month periods ended
March 31, 2005 and 2004, and which had average occupancy
rates during these periods of 97.9% and 88.8%, respectively.
These properties produced revenues of $8.7 million and
$8.0 million during the three-month periods ended
March 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. This increase of
$0.7 million was the result of the improved Fall 2004 lease
up and was offset by certain non-rental revenues previously
reflected as property revenues by the Predecessor Entities,
which are now reflected as resident services revenues in our
TRS. Future revenues will be dependent on our ability to
maintain our current leases in effect for the 2004/2005 academic
year and our ability to obtain appropriate rental rates and
desired occupancy for the 2005/2006 academic year at our various
properties during our leasing period, which typically begins in
January and ends in August.
At these existing properties, operating expenses remained
relatively constant at $3.6 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2005 compared to $3.5 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2004. This slight increase was
the result of increases in operating expenses such as marketing,
maintenance, employee benefits, utilities and taxes. These
increases were due to a combination of increases in inflation
and overall higher occupancy rates. We anticipate that operating
expenses in 2005 will continue to increase slightly as compared
with 2004 as a result of expected increases in utility costs,
property taxes and general inflation.
|
|
|
On-Campus Participating Properties (OCPP)
Operations |
Same Store OCPP Operations. We had four participating
properties containing 4,167 beds (including the additional 210
beds at our Prairie View A&M property that opened in August
2003) which were operating during both the three-month periods
ended March 31, 2005 and 2004. The Cullen Oaks
Phase II property is currently under construction and is
scheduled to commence operations in August 2005. Revenues from
our on-campus participating properties increased to
$5.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005
from $5.3 million for the three months ended March 31,
2004, an increase of $0.2 million. This increase was
primarily due to an increase in rental rates, which was slightly
offset by a decrease in average occupancy from 96.2% for the
three months ended March 31, 2004 to 94.4% for the three
months ended March 31, 2005. Coyote Village, formerly an
on-campus participating property that commenced operations in
August 2003, had its ground lease transferred to Weatherford
College in April 2004; therefore, it is not reflected in
operating revenues and expenses but is included in discontinued
operations for the three months ended March 31, 2004.
Operating expenses for our on-campus participating properties
remained relatively constant at $1.9 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2005 compared to $1.8 million
for the three months ended March 31, 2004. We anticipate
that operating expenses during 2005 will increase slightly as
compared with 2004 as a result of expected increases in utility
costs and general inflation.
Ground/facility lease expense remained relatively constant at
$0.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005
as compared to $0.1 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2004.
|
|
|
Third Party Development and Management Services |
Third party development and management services revenue
decreased $0.7 million from $2.1 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2004 to $1.4 million in 2005,
primarily due to the factors discussed in the paragraphs below.
Third party development and management services operating
expenses increased $0.2 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 compared with the same period in 2004,
48
primarily due to expenses incurred in 2005 in relation to the
pre-development and design services provided under the West
Virginia University project.
Development Services. Third party development services
revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2005 decreased
$1.1 million compared with the same period in 2004. This
decrease was primarily due to the UCI Phase I development
project being completed in Fall 2004 and therefore earning no
revenue during the three months ended March 31, 2005 as
compared to earning approximately $0.8 million of revenue
during the three months ended March 31, 2004. We also
recognized $0.2 million in construction savings on a
previously completed third party development project during the
three months ended March 31, 2004. In addition, this
decrease was due to a combination of fewer projects, a lower
average project development cost and corresponding contractual
fee per project and the percentage of the contractual fee
recognized during the respective periods. We had four projects
in progress during the three months ended March 31, 2005
with an average contractual fee of $1.2 million compared to
the five projects in progress with an average contractual fee of
$1.4 million for the three months ended March 31,
2004. In addition, due to the differences in the percentage of
construction completed during the periods, of the total
contractual fees of the projects in progress during the
respective periods, 12.3% was recognized (on a percentage of
completion basis) during the three months ended March 31,
2005 compared with 20.4% for the same period in 2004.
Development services revenues are dependent on our ability to
successfully be awarded such projects, the amount of the
contractual fee related to the project and the timing and
completion of the construction of the project. In addition, to
the extent projects are completed under budget, we may be
entitled to a portion of such savings, which are recognized as
revenue upon third party verification of the project costs. It
is possible that projects for which we have expended
pre-development costs will not close and that we will not be
reimbursed for such costs. The pre-development costs associated
therewith will ordinarily be charged against income for the
then-current period.
Management Services. Third party management revenues
increased $0.3 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2005 compared with the same period in 2004. The
increase was due to five new contracts that commenced in Fall
2004. We expect third party property management revenues to
continue to increase during 2005 as compared with 2004,
primarily as a result of a full year of fees on the new
contracts that commenced in Fall 2004.
Concurrent with our commencement of operations and our
designation as a REIT, certain services previously provided to
residents by our Predecessor Entities are now provided by our
TRS. These services generally consist of food service and
housekeeping (at Callaway House), and certain resident
programming activities. These services are provided to the
residents at market rates and, under an agreement between our
TRS and our Operating Partnership, payments from residents at
the properties are collected on behalf of our TRS in conjunction
with their collection of rents. Revenue from resident services
for the three months ended March 31, 2005 approximated
$0.2 million. As a business strategy, our level of services
provided to residents by the TRS is only incidental to that
which is necessary to maintain or increase occupancy. As a
result of the timing of the formation of the TRS in 2004, we
expect revenue from resident services in 2005 to be
significantly higher than in 2004.
|
|
|
General and Administrative |
General and administrative expenses (relating primarily to
corporate operations) increased $0.9 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2005 compared with the same period
in 2004. The increase was primarily a result of expenses
incurred as a public company which were not present in the
Predecessor Entities operations such as directors
compensation, investor relations, increased professional
services fees, Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 compliance costs
and director and officer liability insurance. As a result of
being a public company and a separation agreement entered into
with an executive officer in April 2005, we anticipate our
future general and administrative expenses will exceed those of
our Predecessor Entities.
49
|
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization |
Depreciation and amortization increased $1.2 million for
the three months ended March 31, 2005 compared with the
same period in 2004 primarily due to the opening of the two
owned off-campus properties in August 2004 and the acquisition
of seven properties for $120.2 million during the first
quarter of 2005, as described above. In conjunction with the
acquisition of the seven properties, a valuation was assigned to
in-place leases which are amortized over the average remaining
lease terms of the acquired leases (generally less than one
year). This contributed $0.2 million of additional
depreciation and amortization expense for the three months ended
March 31, 2005. We expect depreciation and amortization in
2005 to increase significantly from 2004 primarily due to a full
years depreciation on the two owned off-campus properties
that opened in August 2004 and the acquisition of seven
properties during the first quarter of 2005.
Amortization of deferred financing costs increased
$0.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005
compared with the same period in 2004 primarily due to debt
assumed or incurred in connection with the property acquisitions
closed during the first quarter of 2005 as well as additional
finance costs incurred in 2004 related to our revolving credit
facility obtained in connection with the IPO. These increases
were offset by a decrease in amortization related to two
mortgage loans that were paid off in connection with our IPO.
Interest expense for the three months ended March 31, 2005
decreased $0.5 million compared to the same period in 2004
primarily due to the retirement of two mortgage loans in
connection with the IPO. This was partially offset by
$0.5 million of additional interest expense from the debt
assumed or incurred in relation to the acquisition of the seven
properties in the first quarter 2005, as well as increased
interest expense in 2005 related to our revolving credit
facility. We anticipate that interest expense in 2005 will
increase from 2004 levels due to the debt assumed or incurred in
connection with our 2005 property acquisitions and to increases
in borrowing rates that may impact the floating rate on our
revolving credit facility.
Other income increased $0.4 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2005 compared with the same period in 2004
due to a gain recognized related to a property insurance
settlement.
Subsequent to our IPO formation transactions, our TRS manages
our non-REIT activities. The TRS is subject to federal, state
and local income taxes and is required to recognize the future
tax benefits attributable to deductible temporary differences
between book and tax basis, to the extent that the asset will be
realized. For the three months ended March 31, 2005, the
TRS recorded $0.1 million of income tax expense.
Unlike our Predecessor Entities, we are subject to federal,
state and local income taxes as a result of the services
provided by our TRS, which include our third party services
revenues, resident services revenues and the operations of our
on-campus participating properties. As a result, the income
earned by our TRS, unlike our Predecessor Entities and our
results from our owned off-campus properties, is subject to a
new level of taxation. The amount of income taxes to be
recognized in the future will be dependent on the operating
results of the TRS.
Minority interests during the three months ended March 31,
2004 represented a minority partners share of the net loss
of four owned off-campus properties. We redeemed this minority
partners interest in connection with our IPO. Minority
interests for the three months ended March 31, 2005
represented the
50
1.0% interest in the net equity of our Operating Partnership
held by recipients of PIUs. See Management Executive
Officer Compensation Profits Interest Units for a
description of PIUs.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS)
No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of
Long-Lived Assets, requires, among other items, that the
operating results of real estate properties sold or classified
as held for sale be included in discontinued operations in the
statements of operations for all periods presented. Discontinued
operations for the three months ended March 31, 2005
includes The Village at San Bernardino, which was sold to
Cal State University San Bernardino in January 2005.
The properties included in discontinued operations for the three
months ended March 31, 2004 include the Village at
Riverside and other non-core assets that were distributed to our
Predecessor Entities as part of the IPO as well as an on-campus
participating property whose ground lease was transferred to the
Weatherford College in April 2004.
Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2004 and
December 31, 2003
The results for the year ended December 31, 2004 presented
below represent the combined financial results of our
Predecessor Entities for the period from January 1, 2004 to
August 16, 2004, and our consolidated financial results for
the period from August 17, 2004 to December 31, 2004.
The presentation of results for the year ended December 31,
2004 below is not in accordance with GAAP and is presented only
for comparison purposes. The following table presents our
results of operations for the years ended
51
December 31, 2004 and 2003, including the amount (in
thousands) and percentage change in these results between the
two periods:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
Change ($) | |
|
Change (%) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned off-campus properties
|
|
$ |
35,115 |
|
|
$ |
31,514 |
|
|
$ |
3,601 |
|
|
|
11.4 |
% |
|
On-campus participating properties
|
|
|
17,418 |
|
|
|
16,482 |
|
|
|
936 |
|
|
|
5.7 |
% |
|
Third party development and management services
|
|
|
7,908 |
|
|
|
9,128 |
|
|
|
(1,220 |
) |
|
|
(13.4 |
)% |
|
Resident services
|
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
3,083.3 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
60,823 |
|
|
|
57,136 |
|
|
|
3,687 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
% |
Operating Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned off-campus properties
|
|
|
16,861 |
|
|
|
15,272 |
|
|
|
1,589 |
|
|
|
10.4 |
% |
|
On-campus participating properties
|
|
|
7,900 |
|
|
|
7,925 |
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(0.3 |
)% |
|
Third party development and management services
|
|
|
5,543 |
|
|
|
5,389 |
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
% |
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
5,234 |
|
|
|
2,749 |
|
|
|
2,485 |
|
|
|
90.4 |
% |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
9,973 |
|
|
|
8,868 |
|
|
|
1,105 |
|
|
|
12.5 |
% |
|
Ground/facility leases
|
|
|
812 |
|
|
|
489 |
|
|
|
323 |
|
|
|
66.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
46,323 |
|
|
|
40,692 |
|
|
|
5,631 |
|
|
|
13.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
14,500 |
|
|
|
16,444 |
|
|
|
(1,944 |
) |
|
|
(11.8 |
)% |
Nonoperating income and (expenses):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
15.5 |
% |
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(16,698 |
) |
|
|
(16,940 |
) |
|
|
242 |
|
|
|
(1.4 |
)% |
|
Amortization of deferred financing costs
|
|
|
(1,211 |
) |
|
|
(558 |
) |
|
|
(653 |
) |
|
|
117.0 |
% |
|
Other nonoperating income
|
|
|
927 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
927 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total nonoperating expenses
|
|
|
(16,900 |
) |
|
|
(17,427 |
) |
|
|
527 |
|
|
|
(3.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income tax benefit, minority interests, and
discontinued operations
|
|
|
(2,400 |
) |
|
|
(983 |
) |
|
|
(1,417 |
) |
|
|
144.2 |
% |
Income tax benefit
|
|
|
728 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
728 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
Minority interests
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
525.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(1,572 |
) |
|
|
(967 |
) |
|
|
(605 |
) |
|
|
62.6 |
% |
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income attributable to discontinued operations
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
265 |
|
|
|
3,785.7 |
% |
|
(Loss) gain from disposition of real estate
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
(343.8 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total discontinued operations
|
|
|
233 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
913.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(1,339 |
) |
|
$ |
(944 |
) |
|
$ |
(395 |
) |
|
|
41.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned Off-Campus Properties Operations |
Revenues from our owned off-campus properties increased by
$3.6 million in 2004 as compared to 2003 primarily due to
the completion of construction and opening of two properties in
August 2004 and higher fourth quarter occupancy at a majority of
the same store properties operated during both years, as
described below. Operating expenses increased $1.6 million
in 2004 as compared to 2003 primarily due to the new property
operations described below. University Village at
San Bernardino, which also opened in August of 2004, was
sold in January 2005 and is therefore not reflected in operating
revenues and expenses but is included in discontinued operations
for the relevant periods.
New Property Operations. In August of 2004 we completed
construction of and opened a 406-bed property serving California
State University, Fresno and a 749-bed property serving Temple
University. These new properties contributed $3.2 million
of additional revenues and $1.3 million of additional
operating expenses during 2004 as compared with 2003.
52
Same Store Property Operations (Excluding New Property
Operations). We had nine properties containing
5,971 beds which were operating during both 2004 and 2003,
and which had weighted average occupancy rates during these
periods of 89.7% and 86.9%, respectively. These properties
produced revenues of $31.9 million and $31.5 million
during 2004 and 2003, respectively. This increase of
approximately $0.4 million or 1.3% was the result of the
improved Fall 2004 lease up and was offset by certain non-rental
revenues previously reflected as property revenues by the
Predecessor Entities, which are now reflected as resident
services revenues in our TRS. Revenues in 2005 will be dependent
on our ability to maintain our current leases in effect for the
2004/2005 academic year and our ability to obtain appropriate
rental rates and desired occupancy for the 2005/2006 academic
year at our various properties during our leasing period, which
typically begins in January and ends in August.
At these existing properties, operating expenses increased
$0.3 million or 2.0% in 2004 compared with 2003. This
increase was the result of increases in operating expenses such
as bad debt, maintenance, employee benefits, and taxes. These
increases were due to a combination of increases in inflation,
overall higher occupancy rates and decreased collection
prospects at certain properties. We anticipate that operating
expenses in 2005 will increase slightly as compared with 2004 as
a result of expected increases in utility costs, property taxes
and general inflation.
Revenues from our on-campus participating properties increased
$0.9 million in 2004 compared to 2003 primarily due to the
opening of 210 additional beds at the University College-Prairie
View A&M University property in August 2003, and an
increase in both average occupancy and rental rates for
properties which were operating during both 2004 and 2003.
Operating expenses for our on-campus participating properties
remained relatively constant in 2004 as compared to 2003. Coyote
Village, an on-campus participating property that commenced
operations in August 2003, had its ground lease transferred to
Weatherford College in April 2004; therefore, it is not
reflected in operating revenues and expenses but is included in
discontinued operations for the relevant periods.
New Property Operations. As discussed above, in August
2003 we opened a 210-bed phase of University College-Prairie
View A&M University. The opening of this on-campus property
contributed $0.8 million and $0.4 million of revenues
for 2004 and 2003, respectively, an increase of
$0.4 million. This property also contributed a
$0.3 million increase in operating expenses from
$0.1 million in 2003 to $0.4 million in 2004.
Same Store OCPP Operations (Excluding New Property
Operations). We had four properties containing 3,957 beds
which were operating during both 2004 and 2003, and which had
average occupancy rates during these periods of 82.9% and 78.9%
respectively. These properties produced revenues of
$16.6 million and $16.1 million during 2004 and 2003,
respectively.
Operating expenses for our same store OCPPs decreased to
$7.5 million in 2004 from $7.8 million in 2003, a
decrease of $0.3 million. This decrease is primarily due to
reduced utility rates and improved collection prospects. We
anticipate that operating expenses in 2005 will increase
slightly as compared with 2004 as a result of expected increases
in utility costs and general inflation.
Ground/facility lease expense increased by $0.3 million in
2004 compared with 2003. Ground/facility lease payments reflect
the Universities 50% share of the related facilities
cash flows, which have increased in 2004 as compared to 2003.
The increased cash flows primarily relate to improvements in
operations resulting from increased occupancy and rates as well
as reductions in turn costs and bad debt expense.
|
|
|
Third Party Development and Management Services |
Third party development and management services revenue
decreased $1.2 million from $9.1 million in 2003 to
$7.9 million in 2004.
Development Services. Third party development services
revenue for 2004 decreased $2.1 million compared to 2003.
This decrease was due to a combination of a lower average
contractual fee per project and the percentage of the
contractual fee recognized during the respective periods. We had
13 projects in
53
progress during 2004 with an average contractual fee of
$1.0 million, as compared to 2003 in which we had ten
projects in progress with an average contractual fee of
$1.2 million. In addition, due to differences in the
percentage of construction completed during the periods, of the
total contractual fees of the projects in progress during the
respective periods, 36.0% was recognized (on a percentage of
completion basis) during 2004 compared to 60.4% in 2003.
Development services revenues are dependent on our ability to
successfully be awarded such projects, the amount of the
contractual fee related to the project and the timing and
completion of the construction of the project. It is possible
that projects for which we have expended pre-development costs
will not close and that we will not be reimbursed for such
costs. The pre-development costs associated therewith will
ordinarily be charged against income for the then-current
period. Any such charge could have a material effect on our
results of operations in the period in which the charge is taken.
Third party development services revenue from on-campus
participating properties increased primarily due to the
recognition of $0.4 million of deferred development fees on
an on-campus participating property that was transferred to
Weatherford College in April 2004.
We continue to see a very active market for third party
development and construction management services with active
request for proposals, or RFP, process consistent with prior
years. The market has begun to expand, with colleges and
universities seeking new levels of service ranging from
long-range planning, predevelopment consulting, and campus
planning, to the more traditional historic full development and
construction management services. We pursue these projects based
on relative profitability, long-term relationship opportunities
and geographical asset growth synergies.
Management Services. Third party management revenues
increased by $0.9 million in 2004 compared with 2003. The
increase was due to five new contracts that commenced in Fall
2004 as well as a full year of fees from contracts that began in
Fall 2003. We expect third party property management revenues to
increase in 2005 from 2004, primarily as a result of the timing
of the new contracts that commenced in Fall 2004.
Concurrent with our commencement of operations and our
designation as a REIT, certain services previously provided to
residents by our Predecessor Entities are now provided by our
TRS. These services generally consist of food service and
housekeeping (at Callaway House), and certain resident
programming activities. These services are provided to the
residents at market rates and, under an agreement between our
TRS and our Operating Partnership, payments from residents at
the properties are collected on behalf of our TRS in conjunction
with their collection of rents. Revenue from resident services
for the year ended December 31, 2004 approximated
$0.4 million. As a business strategy, our level of services
provided to residents by the TRS is only incidental to that
which is necessary to maintain or increase occupancy. As a
result of the timing of the formation of the TRS in 2004, we
expect revenue from resident services in 2005 to be
significantly higher than in 2004.
|
|
|
General and Administrative |
General and administrative expenses (consisting primarily of
corporate expenses) of $5.2 million for 2004 included
$2.2 million of expenses related to the IPO and formation
transactions. Excluding these expenses, general and
administrative expenses increased $0.3 million in 2004
compared to 2003. The IPO and formation transactions consisted
of the recognition of compensation expense of $2.1 million
and $0.1 million in connection with the issuance of PIUs
and restricted stock units, respectively. The remaining increase
was primarily a result of expenses incurred as a public company
which were not present in the Predecessor Entities
operations such as directors compensation, investor
relations and director and officer liability insurance. As a
result of being a public company, we anticipate our future
general and administrative expenses will exceed those of our
Predecessor Entities.
54
|
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization |
Depreciation and amortization increased $1.1 million in
2004 compared to 2003. The increase was primarily due to
$0.8 million of additional depreciation and amortization
from the opening of the two owned off-campus properties in
August 2004 and the opening of the on-campus participating
property in August 2003, as described above. We expect
depreciation and amortization in 2005 to increase significantly
from 2004 primarily due to a full years depreciation on
the two owned off-campus properties opened in August 2004 and
the $120.2 million of announced 2005 acquisitions already
closed or pending closure. Amortization of deferred financing
costs increased $0.7 million in 2004 compared to 2003
primarily due to the write-off of $0.6 million of
unamortized deferred financing costs associated with the
repayment of debt in connection with the IPO.
Interest expense of $16.7 million for 2004 represented a
decrease of $0.2 million from $16.9 million in 2003.
Interest expense decreased due to the retirement of certain debt
in connection with the IPO, which was partially offset by loan
prepayment penalties incurred in connection with such debt
repayment and an increase in interest expense recognized on the
opening of the on-campus participating property in August 2003.
We anticipate that interest expense in 2005 will increase from
2004 levels due to interest expense on debt assumed or incurred
in connection with potential property acquisitions and to
increases in borrowing rates that may impact our floating rate
on our revolving credit facility, which would be slightly offset
by a reduction in interest expense due to the repayment of
$46.0 million in mortgage loans in connection with the IPO.
Other income increased $0.9 million in 2004 as compared
with 2003 primarily due to gains related to two property
insurance settlements.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS)
No. 144 Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal
of Long-Lived Assets requires, among other items, that
the operating results of real estate properties sold or
classified as held for sale be included in discontinued
operations in the statements of operations for all periods
presented. The properties included in discontinued operations
for the years ended December 31, 2004 and/or
December 31, 2003 include (i) the Village at Riverside
and other non-core assets that were distributed to our
Predecessor Entities as part of the IPO, (ii) an on-campus
participating property whose ground lease was transferred to the
Weatherford College in April 2004, and (iii) University
Village at San Bernardino, which was sold to California
State University San Bernardino in January 2005 and
is classified as Owned Off-Campus Property Held for Sale
as of December 31, 2004.
Please refer to Note 15 in the accompanying notes to
consolidated and combined financial statements contained
elsewhere in this prospectus summarizing the results of
operations of the properties sold, distributed, or classified as
held for sale during the years ended December 31, 2004 and
2003.
55
Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2003 and
December 31, 2002
The following table presents our results of operations for the
years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, including the
amount (in thousands) and percentage change in these results
between the two periods:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
Change ($) | |
|
Change (%) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned off-campus properties
|
|
$ |
31,514 |
|
|
$ |
29,997 |
|
|
$ |
1,517 |
|
|
|
5.1 |
% |
|
On-campus participating properties
|
|
|
16,482 |
|
|
|
16,055 |
|
|
|
427 |
|
|
|
2.7 |
% |
|
Third party development and management services
|
|
|
9,128 |
|
|
|
6,019 |
|
|
|
3,109 |
|
|
|
51.7 |
% |
|
Resident services
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(80.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues
|
|
|
57,136 |
|
|
|
52,131 |
|
|
|
5,005 |
|
|
|
9.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned off-campus properties
|
|
|
15,272 |
|
|
|
14,856 |
|
|
|
416 |
|
|
|
2.8 |
% |
|
On-campus participating properties
|
|
|
7,925 |
|
|
|
8,101 |
|
|
|
(176 |
) |
|
|
(2.2 |
)% |
|
Third party development and management services
|
|
|
5,389 |
|
|
|
4,441 |
|
|
|
948 |
|
|
|
21.3 |
% |
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
2,749 |
|
|
|
1,995 |
|
|
|
754 |
|
|
|
37.8 |
% |
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
8,868 |
|
|
|
8,077 |
|
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
9.8 |
% |
|
Ground/facility leases
|
|
|
489 |
|
|
|
643 |
|
|
|
(154 |
) |
|
|
(24.0 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
40,692 |
|
|
|
38,113 |
|
|
|
2,579 |
|
|
|
6.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
16,444 |
|
|
|
14,018 |
|
|
|
2,426 |
|
|
|
17.3 |
% |
Nonoperating income and (expenses):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
(95 |
) |
|
|
(57.2 |
)% |
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(16,940 |
) |
|
|
(16,421 |
) |
|
|
(519 |
) |
|
|
3.2 |
% |
|
Amortization of deferred financing costs
|
|
|
(558 |
) |
|
|
(546 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
2.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total nonoperating expenses
|
|
|
(17,427 |
) |
|
|
(16,801 |
) |
|
|
(626 |
) |
|
|
3.7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before minority interests and discontinued operations
|
|
|
(983 |
) |
|
|
(2,783 |
) |
|
|
1,800 |
|
|
|
(64.7 |
)% |
Minority interests
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(46.7 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(967 |
) |
|
|
(2,753 |
) |
|
|
1,786 |
|
|
|
(64.9 |
)% |
Discontinued operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income attributable to discontinued operations
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
(312 |
) |
|
|
(97.8 |
)% |
|
Gain from disposition of real estate
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
(279 |
) |
|
|
(94.6 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total discontinued operations
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
614 |
|
|
|
(591 |
) |
|
|
(96.3 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(944 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,139 |
) |
|
$ |
1,195 |
|
|
|
(55.9 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Owned Off-Campus Properties Operations |
Revenues from our owned off-campus properties increased in 2003
by $1.5 million as compared to 2002, primarily from a full
year of operations at a property we developed and opened in
2002, as discussed below.
New Property Operations. In August 2002, we completed
construction of a 309-bed property (University Village at
Boulder Creek) and opened the property at 100% occupancy for the
2002/2003 academic year. This property contributed revenues of
$2.6 million and operating expenses of $0.8 million in
2003, its first full calendar year of operations, an increase of
approximately $1.6 million and $0.5 million,
respectively, from its partial first year of operation in 2002.
Same Store Property Operations (Excluding New Property
Operations). We had eight properties containing 5,662 beds
in 2003 and 2002 which produced revenues of $28.9 million
and $29.0 million in those years, respectively. Our
weighted average occupancy of 86.4% for 2003 decreased slightly
from 86.7%
56
in 2002. The decrease in both revenue and occupancy from 2002 to
2003 was primarily due to a softening of the overall multifamily
submarket primarily impacting two properties.
At these existing properties, operating expenses remained
relatively constant and decreased by $0.1 million in 2003
as compared to 2002.
Revenues from our on-campus participating properties increased
$0.4 million in 2003 compared to 2002 primarily due to the
opening of 210 additional beds at the University
College PVAMU property in August 2003, as discussed below.
Coyote Village, formerly an on-campus participating property
that commenced operations in August 2003, had its ground leases
transferred to Weatherford College in April 2004; therefore, it
is not reflected in operating revenues and expenses but is
included in discontinued operations. In addition, Lamar, an
on-campus participating property that commenced operations in
August 2002, had its ground lease transferred to Lamar
University in December 2002; therefore, it is not reflected in
operating revenues and expenses but is included in discontinued
operations for the year ended December 31, 2003.
New Property Operations. In August 2003 we opened a
210-bed phase of University College-Prairie View A&M
University. The opening of this on-campus property contributed
$0.4 million of revenue and $0.1 million of operating
expenses in 2003.
Same Store OCPP Operations (Excluding New Property
Operations). We had four properties containing
3,957 beds which were operating during both 2003 and 2002,
and which had average occupancy rates during these periods of
78.9% and 78.7%, respectively. These properties produced
revenues of $16.1 million in both 2003 and 2002.
Operating expenses for our same store OCPP properties were
$7.8 million and $8.1 million in 2003 and 2002,
respectively, a decrease of $0.3 million. This decline was
the result of a reduction in insurance premiums and reductions
in expenses related to corporate management and oversight.
Ground/facility lease expense decreased by $0.2 million in
2003 compared with 2002. Ground/facility lease payments reflect
the Universities 50% share of the related facilities
cash flows, which decreased in 2003 as compared to 2002.
|
|
|
Third Party Development and Management Services |
Third party development and management services revenues
increased from $6.0 million in 2002 to $9.1 million in
2003, an increase of $3.1 million.
Development Services. Third party development services
revenues of $7.9 million in 2003 represented an increase of
$2.8 million from $5.1 million in 2002. This increase
resulted primarily from an increase in the number of development
projects in progress (twelve in 2003 compared to nine in 2002, a
33% increase). Incentive fees based on cost savings were
$0.2 million for 2002 and 2003.
Management Services. Third party property management
revenues of $1.2 million in 2003 represented an increase of
$0.2 million from $1.0 million in 2002. The increase
consisted of $0.2 million from a full year of fees from
contracts beginning in 2002 and an increase of $0.2 million
from five contracts that commenced in Fall 2003, offset, in
part, by the final amortization in 2002 of a deferred
cancellation fee in the amount of $0.2 million.
The increase in the volume of our third party service business
required us to correspondingly increase the resources and
related costs dedicated to the pursuit and delivery of third
party services. Consequently, our compensation and benefits,
insurance and pursuit costs increased by $1.0 million from
$4.4 million in 2002 to $5.4 million in 2003. In part,
these increased expenses reflect our increased staffing needs in
this area.
57
|
|
|
General and Administrative |
General and administrative expenses (consisting primarily of
corporate expenses) of $2.8 million in 2003 represented an
increase of $0.8 million from $2.0 million in 2002.
The increase was primarily a result of a severance accrual for
our Predecessor Entities former chief executive officer.
|
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization |
Depreciation and amortization of $8.9 million for 2003
represented an increase of $0.8 million due to a full
years depreciation of one owned off-campus property placed
in service during 2002 and depreciation of an on-campus
participating property placed in service in August 2003.
Amortization of deferred financing costs remained relatively
constant at $0.6 million for both 2003 and 2002.
Interest expense of $16.9 million in 2003 represented an
increase of $0.5 million from $16.4 million in 2002.
The increase consisted primarily of a full years interest
expense in 2003 relating to a developed property that opened in
Fall 2002 and a partial years interest expense on a
developed on-campus participating property that opened in Fall
2003, partially offset by a decrease in interest expense
resulting from principal payments.
SFAS No. 144 requires, among other items, that the
operating results of real estate properties sold or classified
as held for sale be included in discontinued operations in the
statements of operations for all periods presented. The
properties included in discontinued operations for the years
ended December 31, 2003 and/or December 31, 2002
include (i) the Village at Riverside and other non-core
assets that were distributed to our Predecessor Entities owners
as part of the IPO, (ii) an on-campus participating
property whose ground lease was transferred to the Weatherford
College in April 2004, and (iii) an on-campus participating
property whose ground lease was transferred to Lamar University
in December 2002.
Please refer to Note 15 to the accompanying notes to
consolidated and combined financial statements included
elsewhere in this prospectus for a table summarizing the results
of operations of the properties sold, distributed, or classified
as held for sale during the years ended December 31, 2003
and 2002.
Cash Flows
Comparison of the Three Months Ended March 31, 2005
and March 31, 2004
For the three months ended March 31, 2005, net cash
provided by operating activities before changes in working
capital accounts provided approximately $6.1 million, as
compared to $4.0 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2004, an increase of $2.1 million. This
increase was primarily due to an increase in net income of
approximately $6.7 million, resulting primarily from a gain
on disposition of approximately $5.9 million. Additionally,
operations for the three months ended March 31, 2005 were
impacted by a $1.1 million increase in depreciation and
amortization resulting from the seven new properties that we
acquired during the first quarter of 2005 as well as a full
quarter of depreciation from two owned off-campus properties
that completed construction in the third quarter 2004.
Changes in working capital accounts utilized approximately
$0.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005
while approximately $1.2 million was provided by working
capital for the three months ended March 31, 2004, a
decrease of $1.6 million. This change was primarily due to
an increase in accrued expenses during the three months ended
March 31, 2004 related to our IPO and a decrease in
restricted cash during the same period that was used to fund the
rebuild of an off-campus property that was destroyed by a fire
in 2003. These items were offset by the release of restricted
cash to our
58
Predecessor Entities in the first quarter 2005 in relation to
the completion of three owned off-campus properties in the third
quarter 2004.
Investing activities utilized $58.9 million and
$19.2 million for the three months ended March 31,
2005 and 2004, respectively. The increase in 2005 related
primarily to the acquisition of the seven properties in the
first quarter of 2005. This increase was offset by proceeds
received from the sale of University Village at
San Bernardino in January 2005 as well as a decrease in
cash used to fund three owned off-campus development properties
that were completed in the third quarter 2004. For the three
months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, our cash used in
investing activities was comprised of the following (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended | |
|
|
March 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Property acquisitions
|
|
$ |
(72,763 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
Property dispositions
|
|
|
28,023 |
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures for on-campus participating properties
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(124 |
) |
Capital expenditures for owned off-campus properties
|
|
|
(852 |
) |
|
|
(168 |
) |
Investments in on-campus participating properties under
development
|
|
|
(3,027 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Investment in owned off-campus properties under development
|
|
|
(10,120 |
) |
|
|
(18,866 |
) |
Purchase of corporate furniture, fixtures and equipment
|
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(58,853 |
) |
|
$ |
(19,213 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by financing activities totaled $55.5 million
and $13.0 million for the three months ended March 31,
2005 and 2004, respectively. The increase was primarily due to
draws under our revolving credit facility in 2005 as well as a
bridge loan we obtained in connection with the March 2005
acquisition of Exchange at Gainesville (to be renamed). These
increases were offset by a decrease in proceeds from
construction loans due to the completion of three owned
off-campus development projects in the third quarter 2004, as
well as distributions paid to our stockholders in 2005 as a
result of our new public ownership structure.
Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2004 and
December 31, 2003
For the year ended December 31, 2004, net cash provided by
operating activities before changes in working capital accounts
provided approximately $11.9 million, as compared to
$8.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2003, an
increase of $3.0 million. Despite a $0.4 million
increase in net loss from 2003 to 2004, operations for 2004 were
impacted by $3.4 million of non-cash expenses which
primarily consisted of compensation related to the issuance of
PIUs and restricted stock units in connection with our IPO and
increased depreciation and amortization primarily due to the
timing of various student housing property additions.
Changes in working capital accounts provided approximately
$5.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2004
while $2.0 million was utilized by working capital for the
year ended December 31, 2003, an increase of
$7.4 million. This change was primarily the result of a
receivable for insurance proceeds in 2003 related to a fire that
occurred at one of our owned off-campus properties under
development in Fresno, California the subsequent receipt and use
of those proceeds in 2004 to fund the related rebuild costs, as
well as higher payables associated with three development
projects under construction as of December 31, 2003.
59
Additionally, in connection with the pay down of three
construction loans as part of our IPO formation transactions,
certain restricted funds were released by the lender in the
third quarter 2004.
Investing activities used $63.6 million and
$33.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2004
and 2003, respectively. The increase in the cash used in
investing activities during the year ended December 31,
2004 related primarily to the use of cash to fund the
development costs at University Village at Fresno, University
Village at San Bernardino and University Village at TU
owned off-campus construction projects, which were completed in
Fall 2004. Additionally, in 2004, we purchased land and funded
development costs for University Village at Sweet Home and
commenced construction of a new on-campus facility (Cullen
Oaks Phase II), both of which are scheduled to be
completed in August 2005. For the years ended December 31,
2004 and 2003, our cash used in investing activities was
comprised of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Property dispositions/ transfers to University
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(7,976 |
) |
Capital expenditures for on-campus participating properties
|
|
|
(1,045 |
) |
|
|
(406 |
) |
Capital expenditures for owned off-campus properties
|
|
|
(7,674 |
) |
|
|
(3,775 |
) |
Investments in on-campus participating properties under
development
|
|
|
(836 |
) |
|
|
(3,382 |
) |
Investments in owned off-campus properties under development
|
|
|
(53,446 |
) |
|
|
(18,002 |
) |
Purchase of corporate furniture, fixtures, and equipment
|
|
|
(620 |
) |
|
|
(197 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(63,621 |
) |
|
$ |
(33,738 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by financing activities totaled $45.2 million
and $21.5 million for the years ended December 31,
2004 and 2003, respectively. In connection with our IPO and our
subsequent issuance of additional shares under the exercise of
the underwriters over-allotment option, we generated gross
proceeds of approximately $220.8 million. Approximately
$23.0 million of the gross proceeds were used for the
underwriters discount, offering costs and financing costs,
leaving us with net proceeds of approximately
$197.8 million. Approximately $85.9 million of our
gross proceeds were used to purchase the equity interests of our
Predecessor Entities. In addition, during 2004, we borrowed
approximately $41.2 million to fund the three development
projects described above. In connection with our IPO, we paid
off the then-outstanding loan balance (including approximately
$18.3 million of outstanding loan draws from 2003) using
approximately $59.5 million from our IPO proceeds. We also
used our IPO proceeds to pay off $46.0 million of mortgage
debt and the $1.7 million balance on our Predecessor
Entities line of credit. In connection with the IPO, we
also entered into a $75 million revolving credit facility,
of which $11.8 million was outstanding at December 31,
2004. Also, a $2.1 million partial-quarter distribution for
the third quarter 2004 was paid in November 2004.
Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2003 and
December 31, 2002
Net cash provided by operating activities before changes in
working capital accounts totaled $8.9 million and
$6.8 million for 2003 and 2002, respectively, an increase
of $2.1 million. This increase resulted from a
corresponding decrease in net loss of $1.2 million and an
increase in depreciation and amortization of $0.8 million.
Changes in working capital accounts used $2.0 million in
2003 while $0.8 million was provided by changes in working
capital accounts in 2002, a decrease of $2.8 million. The
change is primarily due to an increase in restricted cash in
2003 related to the receipt of insurance proceeds from a
60
fire that occurred at one of our owned off-campus properties
under development in Fresno, California, as well as certain
restricted funds that were set aside as required under
construction loan agreements.
Net cash used in investing activities totaled $33.7 million
and $21.7 million for 2003 and 2002, respectively, an
increase of $12.0 million. The increase related to the
construction of two on-campus participating properties that
opened in 2003 and three owned off-campus owned properties under
construction during 2003 that opened in Fall 2004. For the years
ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, our cash used in
investing activities was comprised of the following (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Property dispositions/ transfers to University
|
|
$ |
(7,976 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
Capital expenditures for on-campus participating properties
|
|
|
(406 |
) |
|
|
(396 |
) |
Capital expenditures for owned off-campus properties
|
|
|
(3,775 |
) |
|
|
(2,024 |
) |
Investments in on-campus participating properties under
development
|
|
|
(3,382 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Investments in owned off-campus properties under development
|
|
|
(18,002 |
) |
|
|
(18,877 |
) |
Purchase of corporate furniture, fixtures, and equipment
|
|
|
(197 |
) |
|
|
(381 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(33,738 |
) |
|
$ |
(21,678 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by financing activities totaled
$21.5 million and $11.6 million for 2003 and 2002,
respectively, an increase of $9.9 million. This increase
was due primarily to borrowings and contributions to fund the
construction of two on-campus participating properties and three
owned off-campus owned properties under construction during
2003, offset by an increase in distributions to our Predecessor
Entities of $2.1 million.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
|
|
|
Cash Balances and Liquidity |
As of March 31, 2005, excluding our on-campus participating
properties, we had $6.7 million in cash and cash
equivalents, restricted cash and short-term investments, as
compared to $7.0 million and $7.8 million in cash and
cash equivalents, restricted cash and short-term investments as
of December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Restricted
cash primarily consists of escrow accounts held by lenders and
resident security deposits, as required by law in certain
states. Additionally, restricted cash as of December 31,
2004 also included $0.8 million of funds held in escrow
that were paid to the owners of our Predecessor Entities in
February 2005 in accordance with the terms of the Contribution
Agreement executed in conjunction with the IPO.
As of March 31, 2005, our short-term liquidity needs
included, but were not limited to, the following:
(i) anticipated distribution payments to our stockholders
and unitholders for 2005 totaling approximately
$17.2 million based on an anticipated annual distribution
of $1.35 per share or unit, including those required to
qualify as a REIT and satisfy our current distribution policy,
(ii) remaining development costs on our University Village
at Sweet Home development project, estimated to be approximately
$14.8 million, and (iii) funds for other potential
future development projects. We expect to meet our short-term
liquidity requirements generally through net cash provided by
operations, borrowings under our revolving credit facility and
permanent property level debt.
We may seek additional funds to undertake initiatives not
contemplated by our business plan or obtain additional cushion
against possible shortfalls. We also may pursue additional
financing as opportunities arise. Future financings may include
a range of different sizes or types of financing, including the
sale of
61
additional debt or equity securities. While we believe we will
be able to obtain such funds, these funds may not be available
on favorable terms or at all. Our ability to obtain additional
financing depends on several factors, including future market
conditions, our success or lack of success in penetrating our
markets, our future creditworthiness and restrictions contained
in agreements with our investors or lenders, including the
restrictions contained in the agreements governing our revolving
credit facility. These financings could increase our level of
indebtedness or result in dilution to our equity holders.
|
|
|
Revolving Credit Facility |
Our Operating Partnership has a senior revolving credit facility
with a term of 36 months that provides a maximum capacity
of $100 million, subject to certain conditions as contained
in the credit agreement. The maximum capacity may be increased
by up to an additional $100 million, subject to certain
borrowing base requirements, as outlined in the credit
agreement. The facility bears interest at a variable rate, at
our option, based upon a base rate or one-, two-, three-, or
six-month LIBOR plus, in each case, a spread based upon our
total leverage. Additionally, we are required to pay an unused
commitment fee ranging from 0.20% to 0.25% per annum,
depending on the aggregate unused balance. We guarantee the
Operating Partnerships obligations under the credit
facility. As of March 31, 2005, the balance outstanding on
the revolving credit facility totaled $33.6 million,
bearing interest at a weighted average rate of 4.31% per
annum, with remaining availability on our then existing
revolving credit facility totaling $31.5 million, subject
to certain financial covenants. As of June 17, 2005, the
balance outstanding on the revolving credit facility totaled
$50.2 million. We subsequently amended our revolving credit
facility.
The terms of the credit facility include certain restrictions
and covenants that limit, among other things, the payment of
distributions, the incurrence of additional indebtedness, liens
and the disposition of assets. The terms also require compliance
with financial ratios relating to consolidated net worth and
leverage requirements. We are also subject to compliance with
additional fixed charge and debt coverage ratios. As of
March 31, 2005, we were in compliance with all such
covenants. Before June 30, 2006, we may not pay
distributions that exceed 100% of our funds from operations for
any four consecutive quarters. After June 30, 2006, we may
not pay distributions that exceed 95% of our funds from
operations for any four consecutive quarters.
We are required to distribute 90% of our REIT taxable income
(excluding capital gains) on an annual basis in order to qualify
as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, we
intend to make, but are not contractually bound to make, regular
quarterly distributions to common stockholders and PIU holders.
All such distributions are at the discretion of our board of
directors. We may be required to use borrowings under the credit
facility, if necessary and to the extent permitted thereunder,
to meet REIT distribution requirements and qualify as a REIT.
The board of directors considers market factors and our
performance in addition to REIT requirements in determining
distribution levels.
On May 11, 2005, we declared a distribution per share of
common stock of $0.3375, which was paid on May 31, 2005 to
all common stockholders of record as of May 19, 2005. At
the same time, we paid an equivalent amount per unit to holders
of PIUs and restricted stock awards.
|
|
|
Distributions to Owners of the Predecessor Entities |
An entity newly formed by the owners of our Predecessor Entities
was entitled to any savings in the budgeted completion cost of
three of our owned off-campus construction properties that were
completed in Fall 2004. Accordingly, in February 2005, we
distributed approximately $0.4 million of designated
unspent funds to an entity affiliated with the owners of our
Predecessor Entities and accounted for the payment as an equity
distribution. The $0.8 million in escrowed funds described
above were also released to an entity affiliated with the owners
of our Predecessor Entities. We do not have any ownership
interest in either such entity and neither entity has any
ownership interest in us.
62
Additionally, upon completion of construction at University
Village at TU, which occurred Fall 2004, the owners of our
Predecessor Entities received $0.5 million relating to a
construction guarantee fee, which was paid from the remaining
construction budget. In November 2004, the owners of our
Predecessor Entities also received $0.9 million relating to
insurance proceeds we received in connection with the fire that
occurred at the University Village at Fresno. These payments
were also accounted for as equity distributions. Subsequent to
December 31, 2004, other than the completion funds
described above, the only payments that the owners of our
Predecessor Entities are entitled to relate to potential
additional insurance proceeds received in connection with the
fire at the University Village at Fresno.
|
|
|
Recurring Capital Expenditures |
Our properties require periodic investments of capital for
general capital expenditures and improvements. Our policy is to
capitalize costs related to the acquisition, development,
rehabilitation, construction and improvement of properties,
including interest and certain internal personnel costs related
to the communities under rehabilitation and construction.
Capital improvements are costs that increase the value and
extend the useful life of an asset. Ordinary repair and
maintenance costs that do not extend the useful life of the
asset are expensed as incurred. Recurring capital expenditures
represent non-incremental building improvements required to
maintain current revenues and typically include: appliances,
carpeting and flooring, HVAC equipment, kitchen/bath cabinets,
new roofs, site improvements and various exterior building
improvements. Non-recurring capital expenditures include
expenditures that were taken into consideration when
underwriting the purchase of a property which were considered
necessary to bring the property up to operating
standard, and incremental improvements that include, among
other items, community centers, new windows and kitchen/bath
apartment upgrades. Additionally, we are required by certain of
our lenders to contribute amounts to reserves for capital
repairs and improvements at their mortgaged properties. These
annual contributions may exceed the amount of capital
expenditures actually incurred in such year at such properties.
|
|
|
Pre-Development Expenditures |
Our third party development activities have historically
required us to fund pre-development expenditures such as
architectural fees, permits and deposits. Because the closing of
a development projects financing is often subject to third
party delay, we cannot always predict accurately the liquidity
needs of these activities. We frequently incur these
predevelopment expenditures before a financing commitment has
been obtained and, accordingly, bear the risk of the loss of
these predevelopment expenditures if financing cannot ultimately
be arranged on acceptable terms. Historically, the development
projects that we have been awarded have been successfully
structured and financed; however, their development has at times
been delayed beyond the period initially scheduled, causing
revenue to be recognized in later periods.
As of March 31, 2005, we had approximately
$309.4 million of outstanding consolidated indebtedness
(excluding unamortized debt premiums of approximately
$5.0 million), comprised of a $33.6 million balance on
our revolving credit facility (which, prior to the subsequent
amendment of the credit facility, was secured by four of our
owned off-campus properties), $196.1 million in mortgage
and bridge loan indebtedness secured by 13 of our owned
off-campus properties, $20.0 million in mortgage and
construction loans secured by two on-campus participating
properties and $59.7 million in bond issuances secured by
three of our on-campus participating properties. The weighted
average interest rate on our consolidated indebtedness as of
March 31, 2005 was 6.6% per annum. All of our
outstanding indebtedness is fixed rate except for our revolving
credit facility and the Cullen Oaks Phase II construction
loan discussed below. As of March 31, 2005, approximately
11.9% of our total consolidated indebtedness was variable rate
debt.
63
Owned Off-Campus Properties. The following table contains
certain summary information concerning the mortgage and bridge
loan indebtedness that encumbers our owned off-campus
properties, excluding unamortized debt premiums, as of
March 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Annum | |
|
|
|
(in thousands) | |
|
|
|
|
Interest | |
|
|
|
Balance as of | |
Properties |
|
Original Date |
|
Rate | |
|
Maturity Date | |
|
March 31, 2005 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
University Village at Boulder Creek
|
|
12/01/2002 |
|
|
5.71% |
|
|
|
Nov 2012 |
|
|
$ |
16,479 |
|
River Club Apartments
|
|
07/28/2000 |
|
|
8.18% |
|
|
|
Aug 2010 |
|
|
|
18,482 |
|
River Walk Townhomes
|
|
08/31/1999 |
|
|
8.00% |
|
|
|
Sep 2009 |
|
|
|
7,660 |
|
Village at Alafaya Club
|
|
07/11/2000 |
|
|
8.16% |
|
|
|
Aug 2010(1) |
|
|
|
20,418 |
|
Village at Blacksburg
|
|
12/15/2000 |
|
|
7.50% |
|
|
|
Jan 2011 |
|
|
|
21,287 |
|
Commons on Apache
|
|
05/14/1999 |
|
|
7.66% |
|
|
|
Jun 2009 |
|
|
|
7,635 |
|
Callaway House
|
|
03/30/2001 |
|
|
7.10% |
|
|
|
Apr 2011 |
|
|
|
19,661 |
|
University Club Tallahassee
|
|
11/01/2002 |
|
|
7.99% |
|
|
|
Oct 2010 |
|
|
|
13,537 |
|
The Grove at University Club
|
|
04/01/2003 |
|
|
5.75% |
|
|
|
Mar 2013 |
|
|
|
4,389 |
|
College Club Tallahassee
|
|
01/01/2003 |
|
|
6.74% |
|
|
|
Dec 2011 |
|
|
|
8,885 |
|
University Club Gainesville
|
|
11/01/1999 |
|
|
7.88% |
|
|
|
Nov 2009 |
|
|
|
8,518 |
|
City Parc at Fry Street
|
|
10/05/2004 |
|
|
5.96% |
|
|
|
Sep 2014 |
|
|
|
11,776 |
|
Exchange at Gainesville (to be renamed)
|
|
03/29/2005 |
|
|
5.13% |
|
|
|
Sep 2005(2) |
|
|
|
37,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
196,127 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Represents the Anticipated Repayment Date, as defined in the
loan agreement. If the loan is not repaid on the Anticipated
Repayment Date, then certain monthly payments, including excess
cash flow, as defined, become due during the remaining term of
the loan until the maturity date of August 2030. |
|
(2) |
This bridge loan was refinanced in May 2005 by entering into a
permanent mortgage loan in the amount of $38.8 million at a
fixed rate of 5.2% per annum. |
The weighted average interest rate of such indebtedness was
6.9% per annum as of March 31, 2005. Each of these
mortgages is a non-recourse obligation subject to customary
exceptions and has a 30 year amortization schedule. None of
the indebtedness is cross-defaulted or cross-collateralized to
any other indebtedness. The loans generally may not be prepaid
prior to maturity; in certain cases, prepayment is allowed,
subject to prepayment penalties.
On-Campus Participating Properties. Three of our
on-campus participating properties are 100% financed with
project-based taxable bonds, as listed below. Under the terms of
these financings, one of our special purpose subsidiaries
publicly issued three series of taxable bonds and loaned the
proceeds to three special purpose subsidiaries that each hold a
separate leasehold interest. Although a default in payment by
these special purpose subsidiaries could result in a default
under one or more series of bonds, the indebtedness of any of
these special purpose subsidiaries is not cross-defaulted or
cross-collateralized with our indebtedness or the indebtedness
of our Operating Partnership or other special purpose
subsidiaries. Repayment of principal and interest on these bonds
is insured by MBIA, Inc. The loans encumbering the leasehold
interests are non-recourse, subject to customary exceptions.
64
The following table sets forth certain information concerning
these bond financings:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) | |
|
|
Original |
|
Original |
|
Maturity |
|
Balance as of | |
Properties |
|
Date |
|
Term |
|
Date |
|
March 31, 2005 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
University Village-PVAMU(1)
|
|
Sep 1999 |
|
24 years |
|
Sep 2023 |
|
$ |
30,851 |
|
University Village-TAMIU(1)
|
|
Sep 1999 |
|
24 years |
|
Sep 2023 |
|
|
4,719 |
|
University College-PVAMU
(Phase I)(2)
|
|
May 2001 |
|
22 years |
|
Aug 2025 |
|
|
19,855 |
|
University College-PVAMU
(Phase II)(2)
|
|
Jul 2003 |
|
25 years |
|
Aug 2028 |
|
|
4,230 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
59,655 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Part of combined bond issuance. Separate loan agreements are not
cross-collateralized or cross-defaulted. |
|
(2) |
Two financings of the University College-PVAMU facility. The two
phases of this property were placed in service in 2000 and 2003. |
Contractual Obligations
The following table summarizes our contractual obligations (in
thousands) as of December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total | |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
Thereafter | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Long-term debt(1)
|
|
$ |
345,771 |
|
|
$ |
30,368 |
|
|
$ |
17,795 |
|
|
$ |
28,867 |
|
|
$ |
32,626 |
|
|
$ |
29,362 |
|
|
$ |
206,753 |
|
Operating leases(2)
|
|
|
9,810 |
|
|
|
527 |
|
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
482 |
|
|
|
478 |
|
|
|
480 |
|
|
|
7,334 |
|
Capital leases
|
|
|
715 |
|
|
|
275 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
Owned off-campus development project(3)
|
|
|
24,977 |
|
|
|
24,977 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Severance agreement
|
|
|
625 |
|
|
|
455 |
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
381,898 |
|
|
$ |
56,602 |
|
|
$ |
18,656 |
|
|
$ |
29,484 |
|
|
$ |
33,199 |
|
|
$ |
29,870 |
|
|
$ |
214,087 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Long-term debt obligations reflect the payment of both principal
and interest. For long-term obligations with a variable interest
rate, the rate in effect at December 31, 2004 was assumed
to remain constant over all periods presented. |
|
(2) |
Includes minimum annual lease payments of $0.1 million
required through 2079 under the ground lease for University
Village at TU. |
|
(3) |
Consists of the completion costs related to University Village
at Sweet Home, which is scheduled to be completed in August
2005. We have entered into a contract with a general contractor
for certain phases of the construction of this project. However,
this contract does not generally cover all of the costs that are
necessary to place the property into service, including the cost
of furniture and marketing and leasing costs. The unfunded
commitments presented include all such costs, not only those
costs that we are obligated to fund under the construction
contract. This amount does not include completion costs related
to Cullen Oaks Phase II, which is funded through the
construction loan described above. |
Off Balance Sheet Items
We do not have any off-balance sheet items.
Funds from Operations
As defined by NAREIT, FFO represents income (loss) before
allocation to minority interests (computed in accordance with
GAAP), excluding gains (or losses) from sales of property, plus
real estate related
65
depreciation and amortization (excluding amortization of loan
origination costs) and after adjustments for unconsolidated
partnerships and joint ventures. We present FFO because we
consider it an important supplemental measure of our operating
performance and believe it is frequently used by securities
analysts, investors and other interested parties in the
evaluation of REITs, many of which present FFO when reporting
their results. FFO is intended to exclude GAAP historical cost
depreciation and amortization of real estate and related assets,
which assumes that the value of real estate diminishes ratably
over time. Historically, however, real estate values have risen
or fallen with market conditions. Because FFO excludes
depreciation and amortization unique to real estate, gains and
losses from property dispositions and extraordinary items, it
provides a performance measure that, when compared year over
year, reflects the impact to operations from trends in occupancy
rates, rental rates, operating costs, development activities and
interest costs, providing perspective not immediately apparent
from net income.
We compute FFO in accordance with standards established by the
Board of Governors of NAREIT in its March 1995 White Paper (as
amended in November 1999 and April 2002), which may differ from
the methodology for calculating FFO utilized by other equity
REITs and, accordingly, may not be comparable to such other
REITs. Further, FFO does not represent amounts available for
managements discretionary use because of needed capital
replacement or expansion, debt service obligations or other
commitments and uncertainties. FFO should not be considered as
an alternative to net income (loss) (computed in accordance with
GAAP) as an indicator of our financial performance or to cash
flow from operating activities (computed in accordance with
GAAP) as an indicator of our liquidity, nor is it indicative of
funds available to fund our cash needs, including our ability to
pay distributions.
The following table presents a reconciliation of our historical
FFO to our net income (loss) (in thousands, except share and per
share information):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended | |
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
March 31, | |
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
8/17/04 to 12/31/04 | |
|
1/1/04 to 8/16/04 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
8,192 |
|
|
$ |
1,530 |
|
|
$ |
1,802 |
|
|
$ |
(3,141 |
) |
|
$ |
(944 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,139 |
) |
Minority interests
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
(129 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
(Gain) loss from dispositions of real estate
|
|
|
(5,883 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(295 |
) |
Real estate related depreciation and amortization:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
3,424 |
|
|
|
2,259 |
|
|
|
4,158 |
|
|
|
5,815 |
|
|
|
8,868 |
|
|
|
8,077 |
|
|
Discontinued operations depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
346 |
|
|
|
334 |
|
|
Furniture, fixtures and equipment depreciation
|
|
|
(98 |
) |
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
|
(154 |
) |
|
|
(181 |
) |
|
|
(277 |
) |
|
|
(178 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funds from operations (FFO)
|
|
$ |
5,722 |
|
|
$ |
3,786 |
|
|
$ |
5,987 |
|
|
$ |
2,622 |
|
|
$ |
7,961 |
|
|
$ |
5,769 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FFO per share basic
|
|
$ |
0.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FFO per share diluted
|
|
$ |
0.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0.47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
12,622,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,513,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
12,769,939 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,634,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our FFO for the year ended December 31, 2004 was impacted
by a series of charges totaling approximately $2.6 million
related to our recent IPO and related formation transactions.
The primary components of the charges include: (i) PIU
grants of approximately $2.1 million, (ii) restricted
stock unit grants of $0.1 million, and (iii) the
write-off of loan origination costs and exit fees associated
with the repayment of indebtedness of approximately
$1.2 million. These items were partially offset by the
recognition of a deferred tax asset associated with a step up in
the tax basis of the on-campus participating properties owned by
our TRS, resulting in an income tax benefit of $0.8 million.
66
While our on-campus participating properties contributed
$17.4 million, $16.5 million and $16.1 million to
our revenues for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003
and 2002, and $5.5 million and $5.3 million to our
revenues for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and
2004, respectively, under our participating ground leases, we
and the participating university systems each receive 50% of the
properties net cash available for distribution after
payment of operating expenses, debt service (which includes
significant amounts towards repayment of principal) and capital
expenditures. A substantial portion of our revenues attributable
to these properties is reflective of cash that is required to be
used for capital expenditures and for the amortization of
applicable property indebtedness. These amounts do not increase
our economic interest in these properties or otherwise benefit
us since our interest in the properties terminates upon the
repayment of the applicable property indebtedness.
As noted above, FFO excludes GAAP historical cost depreciation
and amortization of real estate and related assets because these
GAAP items assume that the value of real estate diminishes over
time. However, unlike the ownership of our owned off-campus
properties, the unique features of our ownership interest in our
on-campus participating properties cause the value of these
properties to diminish over time. For example, since the
ground/facility leases under which we operate the participating
properties require the reinvestment from operations of specified
amounts for capital expenditures and for the repayment of debt
while our interest in these properties terminates upon the
repayment of the debt, such capital expenditures do not increase
the value of the property to us and mortgage debt amortization
only increases the equity of the ground lessor. Accordingly,
when considering our FFO, we believe it is also a meaningful
measure of our performance to modify FFO to exclude the
operations of our on-campus participating properties and to
consider their impact on performance by including only that
portion of our revenues from those properties that are
reflective of our share of net cash flow and the management fees
that we receive, both of which increase and decrease with the
operating measure of the properties, a measure referred to
herein as FFOM, as set forth below (in thousands, except share
and per share information).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended | |
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended | |
|
|
March 31, | |
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
Period from | |
|
Period from | |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
8/17/04 to 12/31/04 | |
|
1/1/04 to 8/16/04 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Funds from operations
|
|
$ |
5,722 |
|
|
$ |
3,786 |
|
|
$ |
5,987 |
|
|
$ |
2,622 |
|
|
$ |
7,961 |
|
|
$ |
5,769 |
|
Elimination of operations of on-campus participating properties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (income) loss from on-campus participating properties
|
|
|
(1,310 |
) |
|
|
(1,285 |
) |
|
|
(1,023 |
) |
|
|
753 |
|
|
|
(187 |
) |
|
|
(197 |
) |
|
Amortization of investment in on-campus participating properties
|
|
|
(879 |
) |
|
|
(854 |
) |
|
|
(1,309 |
) |
|
|
(2,222 |
) |
|
|
(3,270 |
) |
|
|
(3,158 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,533 |
|
|
|
1,647 |
|
|
|
3,655 |
|
|
|
1,153 |
|
|
|
4,504 |
|
|
|
2,414 |
|
Modifications to reflect operational performance of on-campus
participating properties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our share of net cash flow(1)
|
|
|
212 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
583 |
|
|
|
471 |
|
|
|
651 |
|
|
Management fees
|
|
|
263 |
|
|
|
273 |
|
|
|
371 |
|
|
|
489 |
|
|
|
809 |
|
|
|
796 |
|
|
On-campus participating properties development fees(2)
|
|
|
230 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of on-campus participating properties
|
|
|
705 |
|
|
|
448 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
1,072 |
|
|
|
1,280 |
|
|
|
1,447 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funds from operations-modified for operational performance of
on-campus participating properties (FFOM)
|
|
$ |
4,238 |
|
|
$ |
2,095 |
|
|
$ |
4,255 |
|
|
$ |
2,225 |
|
|
$ |
5,784 |
|
|
$ |
3,861 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FFOM per share basic
|
|
$ |
0.34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0.34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FFOM per share diluted
|
|
$ |
0.33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0.34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
12,622,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,513,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
12,769,939 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,634,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
(1) |
50% of the properties net cash available for distribution
after payment of operating expenses, debt service (including
repayment of principal) and capital expenditures. Amounts
represent actual cash received for the year-to-date periods and
amounts accrued for the interim periods. As a result of using
accrual-based results in interim periods and cash-based results
for year-to-date periods, the sum of reported interim results
may not agree to annual cash received. |
|
(2) |
Development and construction management fees related to the
Cullen Oaks Phase II on-campus participating property. |
This narrower measure of performance measures our profitability
for these properties in a manner that is similar to the measure
of our profitability from our services business where we
similarly incur no initial or ongoing capital investment in a
property and derive only consequential benefits from capital
expenditures and debt amortization. We believe, however, that
this narrower measure of performance is inappropriate in
traditional real estate ownership structures where debt
amortization and capital expenditures enhance the property
owners long-term profitability from its investment.
Our FFOM may have limitations as an analytical tool because it
reflects the unique contractual calculation of net cash flow
from our on-campus participating properties, which is different
from that of our off-campus owned properties. Additionally, FFOM
reflects features of our ownership interests in our on-campus
participating properties that are unique to us. Companies that
are considered to be in our industry may not have similar
ownership structures; therefore, those companies may not
calculate FFOM in the same manner that we do, or at all,
limiting its usefulness as a comparative measure. We compensate
for these limitations by relying primarily on our GAAP and FFO
results and using our FFOM only supplementally.
Inflation
Our leases do not typically provide for rent escalations.
However, they typically do not have terms that extend beyond
12 months. Accordingly, although on a short term basis we
would be required to bear the impact of rising costs resulting
from inflation, we have the opportunity to raise rental rates at
least annually to offset such rising costs. However, a weak
economic environment or declining student enrollment at our
principal universities may limit our ability to raise rental
rates.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure About Market Risk
Our future income, cash flows and fair values relevant to
financial instruments are dependent upon prevailing market
interest rates. Market risk refers to the risk of loss from
adverse changes in market prices and interest rates. The fair
value of our fixed rate debt is impacted by changes in interest
rates, as an example, a 1% increase in interest rates
(100 basis points) would cause a $13.7 million and
$16.3 million decline in the fair value of our fixed rate
debt as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Conversely, a 1% decrease in interest rates would cause a
$15.9 million and $18.9 million increase in the fair
value of our fixed rate debt as of December 31, 2004 and
2003, respectively. Due to the structure of our floating rate
debt and interest rate protection instruments, the impact of a
1% increase or decrease in interest rates on our cash flows
would not be significant at December 31, 2004 or 2003.
All of our outstanding indebtedness is fixed rate except for our
revolving credit facility and the Cullen Oaks Phase II
construction loan. Our revolving credit facility had an
outstanding balance of $33.6 million at March 31, 2005
and bears interest at the lenders Prime rate or LIBOR
plus, in each case, a spread based on our total leverage. The
Cullen Oaks Phase II construction loan had an outstanding
balance of $3.1 million at March 31, 2005 and bears
interest at the lenders Prime rate or LIBOR plus 2.0%, at
our election. We have in place an interest rate swap agreement,
designated as a cash flow hedge, which effectively fixes the
interest rate on the outstanding balance of the Cullen Oaks
Phase I mortgage loan at 5.5% per annum through
maturity in 2008. We anticipate incurring additional variable
rate indebtedness in the future, including draws under our
revolving credit facility. We may in the future use derivative
financial instruments to manage, or hedge, interest rate risks
related to such variable rate borrowings. We do not, and do not
expect to, use derivatives for trading or speculative purposes,
and we expect to enter into contracts only with major financial
institutions.
68
OUR BUSINESS AND PROPERTIES
Our Company
We are one of the largest owners, managers and developers of
high quality student housing properties in the United States in
terms of beds owned, managed and developed. As of March 31,
2005, we owned and/or managed 43 student communities
consisting of approximately 26,900 beds in approximately
9,700 units. We are a fully integrated, self-managed and
self-administered equity REIT with expertise in the acquisition,
design, financing, development, construction management, leasing
and management of student housing properties.
As of March 31, 2005, our owned property portfolio
consisted of 24 high-quality student housing properties,
containing 15,600 beds in approximately 5,200 units.
We acquired 16 of these properties and developed the remaining
eight properties. We manage all 24 of our owned properties.
Nineteen of our 24 owned properties are located off-campus
in close proximity to 22 colleges and universities in nine
states, and five of these properties are located on-campus,
where we manage and participate in their ownership and
management through ground/facility leases with two university
systems. We refer to these five on-campus properties as our
on-campus participating properties. Our owned property portfolio
contains modern housing units, offers resort-style amenities and
is supported by a classic resident assistant system and other
student-oriented programming.
We are also one of the nations leaders in providing third
party services to colleges and universities for the management
and development of on-campus student housing. We manage 19
properties on a third party basis primarily for colleges,
universities and financial institutions. These third party
managed properties contain approximately 11,300 beds in
approximately 4,500 units. In addition, since 1996, we have
been awarded more than 30 on-campus development projects,
resulting in strong relationships with some of the nations
preeminent university systems.
We have driven innovation in the student housing industry,
establishing our company as a premier owner, manager and
developer in the sector. In 2004, we became the first publicly
traded REIT focused solely on student housing properties. Today,
operating as a fully integrated, self-managed and
self-administered equity REIT, our unique and singular focus has
not changed: Student housing is our core business.
Recent Activities
Since our IPO in August of 2004, we have had substantial growth
activities.
We have acquired seven properties totaling 3,118 beds in
978 units for an aggregate purchase price of approximately
$120.2 million. In connection with these acquisitions, we
assumed approximately $47.2 million of mortgage debt. Each
of these acquisitions is described below.
In March 2005, we acquired an off-campus student housing
property (Exchange at Gainesville, to be renamed) consisting of
1,044 beds in 396 units, near the University of
Florida campus in Gainesville, Florida, for a purchase price of
$47.5 million. We entered into a fixed-rate mortgage loan
in the amount of $38.8 million in connection with this
acquisition.
In March 2005, we acquired an off-campus student housing
property (City Parc at Fry Street) consisting of 418 beds
in 136 units, located near the University of North Texas in
Denton, Texas, for a purchase price of $19.2 million. We
assumed approximately $11.8 million of fixed-rate mortgage
debt in connection with this acquisition.
In February 2005, we acquired a portfolio of five off-campus
student housing properties (the Proctor Portfolio)
for a purchase price of approximately $53.5 million. Four
of the properties are located in Tallahassee, Florida and one
property is located in Gainesville, Florida. These five
communities contained
69
1,656 beds in 446 units. We assumed approximately
$35.4 million of fixed-rate mortgage debt in connection
with this acquisition.
|
|
|
Owned Development Activities |
With the commencement of the 2004/2005 academic year in late
August and early September, we completed the development of
three owned off-campus student housing properties at Temple
University, Cal State Fresno and Cal State San Bernardino.
These properties were placed into service with an opening
occupancy of 98%. Collectively they contained 1,635 beds in
457 units. On January 5, 2005, we sold the Cal State
San Bernardino community to the University upon exercise of
its purchase option for $28.3 million and recognized a gain
on sale of $5.9 million.
We are currently in the process of constructing one owned
off-campus property and are in pre-development of two additional
off-campus owned properties. We are also currently constructing
one owned on-campus participating property. We anticipate that
the total development cost relating to these activities will be
approximately $150.3 million. As of March 31, 2005, we
have incurred pre-development and development costs of
approximately $26.1 million in connection with these
properties, with the remaining development costs estimated at
$124.2 million. The activities are described below:
We acquired a land parcel near the State University of New
York Buffalo and commenced development of an owned
off-campus property containing 828 beds in 269 units. Total
development cost is estimated to be $36.1 million. This
property is currently in the final stages of construction and is
pre-leased to 100% occupancy for its upcoming opening in August
2005. As of March 31, 2005, the project was approximately
68% complete, and we anticipate incurring remaining development
costs of approximately $14.8 million.
We are in the later stages of design and pre-development on two
owned off-campus properties with total anticipated development
costs of approximately $97.2 million. One project is
located in Newark, New Jersey near the campuses of the New
Jersey Institute of Technology, Rutgers University and Essex
County Community College. We anticipate development costs of
this property to total approximately $62.3 million and plan
to own this property through a joint venture that we will
control with Titan Investments, a partner with whom we have
previously developed four off-campus student housing properties.
As of March 31, 2005, we have incurred approximately
$0.5 million of pre-development costs related to this
project. The second property is located in close proximity to
Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, and we
estimate the total development costs of this property to be
approximately $34.9 million. Both developments are
currently progressing through their respective entitlement and
municipal approval processes and are contingent upon receiving
all necessary approvals. Depending upon the timeliness of these
approvals, we plan to commence construction in Summer of 2005
for an August 2006 completion or to commence construction in
Summer of 2006 for an August 2007 completion.
Our Cullen Oaks Phase II on-campus participating property,
located on the campus of the University of Houston, is currently
under construction with total development costs estimated to be
$17.0 million. The project is scheduled to be completed in
August 2005 in connection with the 2005/2006 academic year. As
of March 31, 2005, the project was approximately 23%
complete, and we anticipate incurring remaining development
costs of approximately $12.7 million.
|
|
|
Senior Management Restructuring |
On April 28, 2005 we announced the following restructuring
of our senior management:
|
|
|
|
|
James C. Hopke, Jr. rejoined our Company and was appointed
as Executive Vice President and Chief Investment Officer; |
|
|
|
Brian B. Nickel, our former Executive Vice President, Chief
Investment Officer and Secretary, was appointed as Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary; |
|
|
|
Jonathan Graf, our former Vice President and Controller, was
promoted to Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and
Treasurer; |
70
|
|
|
|
|
Greg A. Dowell, our former Senior Vice President and Chief of
Operations, was promoted to Executive Vice President and Chief
of Operations; and |
|
|
|
Kim K. Voss, our former Assistant Controller, was promoted to
Vice President and Controller. |
In April 2005, Ronnie Macejewski resigned as Senior Vice
President Development and Construction and in May 2005,
Mark J. Hager resigned as Executive Vice President, Chief
Financial and Accounting Officer and Treasurer.
Industry Outlook
We believe there will be a surge in college enrollment in the
United States, fueling demand for student housing, and that
markets in which we currently operate will experience among the
largest increases in enrollment, largely as a result of
favorable demographic trends. The major catalyst for enrollment
increases and subsequently student housing demand in the coming
decade will be the growth in the college-aged population
represented by the Echo Boom and the increase in the
percentage of graduating high school students attending college.
The Echo Boom generation are the children of the
Baby Boomers who represent a demographic group as large as the
Baby Boom generation that was born between 1946 and 1964. While
the Baby Boom generation is nearing retirement, much of the Echo
Boom generation, which was born between 1977 and 1997, is
entering or has yet to enter adulthood. In 2003,
4.0 million Americans turned 18; by 2010, that number will
peak at 4.4 million and remain above 4.0 million
annually through 2020.
Additionally, the percentage of high school graduates attending
college has been increasing. According to the 2002 report of the
U.S. Census Bureau, the share of high school graduates
choosing to attend college increased from 45% in 1997 to 65% in
2002. As such, the pool of future college students has been
expanding and is poised to increase to record numbers in the
coming decade.
During 2003, an estimated 16.4 million students were
enrolled in colleges and universities, representing an increase
of 14.6% from ten years earlier and adding 2.1 million more
students to the college rolls. The Department of Education
projects that nationally, enrollments will climb to
18.2 million students by 2013 for an increase of
1.8 million from 2003.
College Enrollment: 1988-2013
71
The impact of demographic changes on college enrollment levels
will not be felt equally across all states. During the past
decade, the fastest growth of post-secondary enrollment has
primarily been concentrated in the Mountain States and the
Sunbelt (Southeast and Southwest). The Sunbelt, the Pacific and
the Northeast are projected to be the fastest growing regions in
college enrollment between 2000 and 2010, fueled by above
average growth projections in the young adult population in
these regions, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Among individual states, California, Texas, New York and Florida
are projected to have the four largest populations of 18 to
24 year olds during the next decade, according to the
U.S. Census Bureau. The fact that these states are major
immigration gateways will also bolster future demographic and
accompanying college enrollment growth.
The following table provides information with respect to the
states projected to experience the most significant changes in
population growth between 2000 and 2010. The states in which we
currently own student housing properties are indicated in bold
face type:
Population Growth Projections
(Age 18-24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change | |
|
% Change | |
Rank | |
|
State |
|
(2000-2010) | |
|
(2000-2010) | |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
1 |
|
|
California |
|
|
1,196,012 |
|
|
|
38.2 |
% |
|
2 |
|
|
Texas |
|
|
395,320 |
|
|
|
18.6 |
% |
|
3 |
|
|
New York |
|
|
302,794 |
|
|
|
18.6 |
% |
|
4 |
|
|
Florida |
|
|
274,826 |
|
|
|
21.9 |
% |
|
5 |
|
|
Massachusetts |
|
|
142,520 |
|
|
|
26.0 |
% |
|
6 |
|
|
Georgia |
|
|
134,177 |
|
|
|
16.9 |
% |
|
7 |
|
|
North Carolina |
|
|
131,863 |
|
|
|
18.2 |
% |
|
8 |
|
|
Virginia |
|
|
122,361 |
|
|
|
18.5 |
% |
|
9 |
|
|
New Jersey |
|
|
105,659 |
|
|
|
15.1 |
% |
|
10 |
|
|
Illinois |
|
|
97,118 |
|
|
|
8.3 |
% |
|
11 |
|
|
Arizona |
|
|
96,911 |
|
|
|
20.8 |
% |
|
12 |
|
|
Maryland |
|
|
94,938 |
|
|
|
20.3 |
% |
|
13 |
|
|
Pennsylvania |
|
|
85,846 |
|
|
|
8.1 |
% |
|
14 |
|
|
Washington |
|
|
73,766 |
|
|
|
13.2 |
% |
|
15 |
|
|
Tennessee |
|
|
55,653 |
|
|
|
10.2 |
% |
|
16 |
|
|
Connecticut |
|
|
53,506 |
|
|
|
19.4 |
% |
|
17 |
|
|
South Carolina |
|
|
49,999 |
|
|
|
13.6 |
% |
|
18 |
|
|
Colorado |
|
|
49,826 |
|
|
|
12.0 |
% |
|
19 |
|
|
Michigan |
|
|
38,027 |
|
|
|
4.1 |
% |
|
20 |
|
|
Alabama |
|
|
35,155 |
|
|
|
8.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
National Average |
|
|
70,067 |
|
|
|
14.8 |
% |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Competitive Strengths
We believe that we have the following competitive advantages:
|
|
|
|
|
Student housing is our core business. We have expertise
in the unique and specialized aspects of the student housing
industry and focus on student housing as our core business. We
are a fully integrated organization, which is capable of
conducting market analysis, administering the entitlement and
municipal approval process, coordinating product design,
securing financing, administering the development process and
providing construction management, leasing and property
management services. Since our inception in 1993, we have been
one of the most active |
72
|
|
|
|
|
companies in the sector as we have been involved in the
development, acquisition, ownership and/or management of more
than 62 student housing properties containing more than 38,200
beds. |
|
|
|
|
One of the industrys most experienced teams.
Collectively throughout their individual careers, the seven
members of our senior management team have been involved in the
development, acquisition or management of more than 114 student
housing properties containing more than 73,500 beds at 78
colleges and universities. Our corporate team of student housing
professionals have participated in every functional aspect of
the ownership, acquisition, development and management of
student housing. Six corporate employees at the level of Vice
President or above, including our CEO, began their careers in
student housing as resident assistants while in college,
providing us with a comprehensive understanding of the
operational aspects of the student housing business. We believe
that this history of experience provides a base of knowledge
that has facilitated building a company with substantial
operating and development expertise in the student housing
industry. |
|
|
|
|
High quality student housing properties. As of
March 31, 2005, our properties had an average age of only
4.7 years. Our properties are located in close proximity
to, and in the case of our on-campus participating properties on
the grounds of, major colleges and universities. Our typical
units include private bedrooms, private or semi-private
bathrooms, living rooms and full kitchens with modern
appliances. Our properties typically offer extensive amenities
and services, including swimming pools, basketball, sand
volleyball and/or tennis courts and clubhouses with fitness
centers, recreational rooms and computer labs, in an
academically oriented environment that parents appreciate. Each
of our properties is managed and cared for by our trained
on-site staff managers, maintenance, business personnel
and resident assistants. |
|
|
|
Extensive network of university and college
relationships. This network provides us with acquisition,
development and management opportunities. Our clients have
included some the nations most prominent systems of higher
education, including the State University of New York System,
the University of California System, the Texas A&M
University System, the Texas State University System, the
University of Georgia System, the University of North Carolina
System, the Purdue University System, the University of Colorado
System and the Arizona State University System. |
|
|
|
Industry innovators. With nearly $1 billion of
development completed or in progress and in excess of
$300 million of properties acquired over the last decade,
we have led the industry in evolving student housing in the
areas of product design concepts, site planning, unit plans and
amenity offerings. We have also developed and implemented
specialized student housing investment and operating systems and
have created a proprietary lease administration and marketing
software customized for student housing that enables us to
quickly identify and respond to market changes and trends. |
Our Business and Growth Strategies
Our primary business objectives are to maximize long-term
stockholder value and cash flow available for distribution to
our stockholders. We intend to achieve these objectives by:
|
|
|
|
|
developing and acquiring owned off-campus student housing
communities that meet our focused investment criteria; |
|
|
|
maximizing the profitability of our owned and third-party
managed properties through proactive marketing, management and
asset preservation strategies; and |
|
|
|
continuing to grow our third-party development and management
services businesses to generate cash flow and build our national
reputation among colleges and universities. |
73
The following summarizes the key aspects of our strategies:
|
|
|
Follow a Disciplined Off-Campus Acquisition and
Development Strategy |
Our investment criteria are focused on acquiring and developing
high quality, modern student housing properties that are located
in close proximity to major colleges and universities. We target
properties that offer pedestrian, bicycle or university bus
service access to their respective campuses. We acquire and
develop properties that feature a differentiated product
offering and are located in student housing submarkets with
barriers to entry. Our focused investment criteria coupled with
our superior operational capabilities provide an opportunity to
increase the value and cash flow of our properties. We believe
that our reputation and close relationship with colleges and
universities also gives us an advantage in sourcing acquisition
and development opportunities, obtaining municipal approvals and
community support for our development projects, and in creating
marketing or operational advantages.
We consider many factors when determining whether we should
enter a market and, if so, whether through acquisition or
development and how to position our property within the market,
including the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Proximity to campus |
|
|
|
Unit mix compared to competition |
|
|
|
Marketability of floor plans compared to competition |
|
|
|
Quality and marketability of amenity offering compared to
competition |
|
|
|
Total housing cost to residents compared to each direct
competitor |
|
|
|
Age of the structure |
|
|
|
Quality of construction and impact related to ongoing capital
expenditures |
|
|
|
Quality of furniture, fixtures and equipment and impact on
ongoing capital expenditures |
|
|
|
Condition and extraordinary cost impacts related to mechanical
and physical plant systems |
|
|
|
Operational and marketing inefficiencies and identification of
areas for improvement |
|
|
|
Internet, communications and entertainment features incorporated
into the structure |
|
|
|
Reputation of the property and competitor properties among
students and key university offices |
|
|
|
|
|
Size of college or university |
|
|
|
Enrollment characteristics and growth projections |
|
|
|
Percent of students housed on-campus |
|
|
|
On-campus housing requirements and policies |
|
|
|
On-campus housing products and pricing |
|
|
|
Development plans for future housing |
|
|
|
Universitys admission policy and expected changes to such
policies |
|
|
|
Presence of university services/programs that enable
establishing formal relationships |
74
|
|
|
|
|
Fundamentals of the overall local housing market |
|
|
|
Fundamentals of student housing submarkets |
|
|
|
Nature of direct competitors and their product offering |
|
|
|
Impact of greater housing market on each student housing
submarket |
|
|
|
Barriers to entry in each student housing submarket |
|
|
|
Student preferences related to each student housing submarket |
|
|
|
Planned or potential future student housing development |
After we identify a potential student housing acquisition or
development opportunity, a team consisting of in-house personnel
and third parties will conduct detailed due diligence to assess
the potential opportunity.
Given our significant development and acquisition activities
over the last decade, we have developed active relationships
with universities, developers, owners, lenders and brokers of
student housing properties that allow us to identify and
capitalize on acquisition and development opportunities. As a
result, we have generated a proprietary database of contacts and
properties that assist us in identifying and evaluating
acquisition and development opportunities. Through our
experienced development staff and our relationship with certain
developers with whom we have previously developed off-campus
student housing properties, we will continue to identify and
acquire development sites in close proximity to colleges and
universities that permit us to develop unique properties that
offer a competitive advantage. We will also continue to benefit
from opportunities derived from our extensive network with
colleges and universities.
|
|
|
Maximize Property-Level Profitability |
We seek to maximize property-level profitability by maximizing
occupancy and revenue along with the implementation of prudent
cost control systems. Our experienced and trained on-site
management personnel administer the timely execution of our
marketing, management and maintenance plans with corporate
support and supervision in all functional areas.
Some of our specific expense control initiatives include:
|
|
|
|
|
establishing internal controls and procedures for cost control
consistently throughout our communities; |
|
|
|
appropriately staffing our properties at the site-level,
minimizing multiple layers of management and increasing
effectiveness; |
|
|
|
negotiating utility and service-level pricing arrangements with
national and regional vendors and requiring corporate-level
approval of service agreements for each community; and |
|
|
|
conducting analysis of the costs and effectiveness of each of
our marketing programs via our proprietary LAMS system. |
|
|
|
Utilize our Proprietary Marketing Systems |
We believe we have developed the industrys only
specialized, fully integrated leasing administration and
marketing software program, which we call LAMS. We utilize LAMS
to maximize our revenue and improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of our marketing and lease administration process.
Through LAMS, each of our properties ongoing marketing and
leasing efforts are supervised at the corporate office on a real
time basis. Among other things, LAMS provides:
|
|
|
|
|
a fully integrated prospect tracking and follow-up system.
Prospect information from all types of inquiries walk-in,
telephone, web site/email, or fax is recorded and entered
into the LAMS database, and an aggressive, fully-automated
follow-up and tracking program is then implemented, |
75
|
|
|
|
|
|
with LAMS generating follow-up labels and electronic
communications and disseminating marketing messages. |
|
|
|
|
a built-in marketing effectiveness program to measure the
success of our marketing efforts on a real time basis. LAMS
generates a weekly traffic analysis that shows the quantity of
each type of inquiry received for that period as well as the
marketing medium that generated each piece of traffic. In
addition, LAMS generates a period-to-period comparative traffic
and leasing analysis that allows us to compare the pace of the
current years traffic and leasing activity to that of
previous years. This enables us to track the effectiveness of
each marketing program being utilized and to respond accordingly. |
|
|
|
a real-time monitor of lease closings and leasing terms. LAMS
automatically generates closing reports allowing us to measure
the staffs closing ratios. The closing ratios are
calculated by LAMS on an individual basis so that we may better
evaluate performance and optimize our staffing. LAMS generates
application and leasing status reports that detail the current
period and year-to-date status of applications and leasing
broken down by type of accommodation. This enables us to quickly
identify potential problems related to pricing and/or
desirability of our various types of accommodations and to
respond accordingly. |
|
|
|
an automated lease generation system. Each propertys lease
term and rental rate information is set up in LAMS by authorized
corporate staff. This enables the corporate office to maintain
tight controls on pricing changes and special promotions. LAMS
generates each resident lease, eliminating the potential for
manual errors of our on-site staff. |
|
|
|
Capitalize on our Unique Understanding of Student
Housing |
Student housing has undergone a dramatic evolution over the past
two decades. Today, students and parents factor in the quality
of housing when selecting a college. Many of the members of our
corporate staff have spent the majority of their careers in
student housing. We witnessed, and at times have driven, this
evolution. Our grass roots understanding of the business gives
us a unique perspective in how we analyze student markets,
design and construct our developments, underwrite our
investments and lease and operate our communities.
|
|
|
Build Products that Meet Students
Expectations |
Many teenagers now leaving for college grew up with their own
bedrooms, bathrooms and all the luxuries of the modern home. The
traditional dormitory featuring double occupancy
bedrooms, community bathrooms and low budget food service is no
longer an acceptable product. Thats why our units
typically feature private bedrooms, private bathrooms, large
living rooms and conveniences like high-speed internet. We
provide the privacy and conveniences todays student
expects.
|
|
|
Build a Sense of Community Through Design |
Our projects are designed to facilitate resident interaction and
management supervision. Unlike multifamily housing, we do not
site plan our properties around the park at your
door concept. Our buildings are typically located around
spacious courtyards with parking located on the perimeters.
Within the core of the community are resort-style amenities and
large community centers with fitness centers, recreation/game
rooms, social lounges and computer labs.
|
|
|
Proactively Manage Leasing Cycles and Annual
Turnover |
Each market has its own distinctive leasing cycle. Leasing
windows can be very short and may differ among targeted student
groups. If you miss a markets cycle, recovery may not
occur until the following academic year. Our LAMS proprietary
leasing administration and marketing software program enables us
to proactively manage this process to maximize results.
76
Most of our owned, off-campus properties have 12-month leases
that provide for 11.5 months of occupancy. This typically
leaves only two weeks to move students out at the end of one
academic year, prepare units and move students in for the next
academic year, a process most traditional real estate operators
are ill equipped to manage. Weve spent a decade refining
our annual turnover program to achieve maximum efficiency.
|
|
|
Manage Individual Lease Liability and Accounts
Receivables |
We lease by the bed on an individual liability basis, as opposed
to joint and several unit leases used in multifamily. We require
a parent or guardian to sign as a guarantor unless a student
provides proof of financial capability. Parents and students
find comfort, and are willing to pay a premium, in knowing they
are not responsible for a roommates rent. With mom and dad
being a party to the lease, it enables us to involve them
directly whenever the need may arise.
There is a misperception that delinquent rents are very high in
student housing. We consider students to be a minimal credit
risk, as parents are typically the true credit behind most
leases. For students with inadequate parental support,
substantial financial aid is available in the form of student
loans, grants and scholarships. Historically, our reserve for
uncollectible rent is less than 1% of rental revenue for our
owned, off-campus assets.
|
|
|
Dispel the Animal House Myth |
Owners and managers once considered students undesirable tenants
whose lack of respect for the community resulted in excessive
damage. For the absentee landlord who doesnt proactively
maintain their student properties, this can be a self-fulfilling
expectation.
We provide students with high-quality, well-amenitized product
that we maintain impeccably. We then communicate to our
residents the expectation that they will respect and care for
the community. Students appreciate our approach and respond
favorably when management is truly proactive in caring for the
community. If students do not respect this philosophy, and
malicious damage does occur, we demonstrate low tolerance and
generally move to evict those students as an example to others.
|
|
|
Maintain Communities Conducive to Academic
Achievement |
Each of our communities is staffed to foster an academically
oriented environment. Our general managers or assistant general
managers live on-site. We also have on-site resident assistants
who organize an array of educational, recreational and social
programs. This approach assists us in gaining the respect of the
subject university, which, in many cases, provides us with a
competitive advantage.
|
|
|
Develop and Retain Personnel |
We strive to develop staff from within via extensive training in
each functional area and via our formal management training
program, which we refer to as Inside Track. Each
year we identify 1 to 20 management candidates from our
student and professional field staff, who are invited to partake
in a three-day kick-off training program to prepare them to
become property managers. They then return to their respective
properties where they undergo a one-year mentoring program,
under the tutelage of their general manager and regional
manager, where they are trained in the each functional aspect of
our business. To aid in retaining field employees, we have also
developed an incentive-based compensation structure for our
on-site personnel.
|
|
|
Maintain and Develop Strategic Relationships |
We seek to maintain and establish relationships with
universities. We believe that establishing and maintaining
relationships with universities is important to the ongoing
success of our business. These relationships should continue to
provide us with favored referrals to enhance our leasing efforts,
77
opportunities for additional acquisitions of student housing
communities and contracts for third-party services.
|
|
|
Efficiently Manage the Unique Structure of our
Leases |
Student housing properties are typically leased by the bed on an
individual lease liability basis, unlike multifamily housing
where leasing is by the unit. Individual lease liability limits
each residents liability for his or her own rent without
liability for a roommates rent. A parent or guardian is
required to execute each lease as a guarantor unless the
resident provides adequate proof of income. The number of lease
contracts that we administer are therefore equivalent to the
number of beds occupied and not the number of units. Unlike
traditional multifamily housing, most of our leases commence and
terminate on the same dates and may have terms of 9, 10, or
12 months. As an example, in the case of our typical
12-month leases, these dates coincide with the commencement of
the universities fall academic term and typically
terminate at the completion of the last subsequent summer school
session. As such, we must re-lease each property in its entirety
each year. We have developed an annual turnover program to
efficiently manage this process.
Operating Segments
We define business segments by their distinct customer base and
service provided. We have identified the following reportable
segments: Owned Off-Campus Properties, On-Campus Participating
Properties and Third Party Services, which consists of
Development Services and Property Management Services.
|
|
|
Owned Off-Campus Properties |
As of March 31, 2005, our Owned Off-Campus Properties
segment consisted of 19 owned off-campus properties that are in
close proximity to 22 public colleges and universities in nine
states. Off-campus properties are generally located in close
proximity to the school campus, generally with pedestrian,
bicycle, or University shuttle access. We tend to offer more
relaxed rules and regulations than on-campus housing that are
more appealing to upper-classmen. We believe that the support of
colleges and universities can be beneficial to the success of
our off-campus properties. We actively seek to have these
institutions recommend our off-campus facilities to their
students or to provide us with mailing lists so that we may
directly market to students and parents. In some cases, the
institutions actually promote our off-campus facilities in their
recruiting and admissions literature. In cases where the
educational institutions do not offer recommendations for
off-campus housing or mailing lists, most nonetheless provide
lists of suitable properties to their students, and we
continually work to ensure that our properties are on these
lists in each of the markets that we serve.
Due to the unique structure of our leases, as discussed above,
we may experience reduced cash flows during the summer months.
Additionally, changes in university admission policies could
adversely affect this segment. For example, if a university
reduces the number of student admissions or requires that a
certain class of students (e.g., freshmen) live in a university
owned facility, the demand for beds at our properties may be
reduced and our occupancy rates may decline. While we may engage
in marketing efforts to compensate for such changes in admission
policies, we may not be able to affect such marketing efforts
prior to the commencement of the annual lease-up period or our
additional marketing efforts may not be successful.
This segment is subject to competition for tenants with
on-campus housing owned by colleges and universities. Colleges
and universities can generally avoid real estate taxes and
borrow funds at lower interest rates than us (and other private
sector operators), thereby decreasing their operating costs.
Residence halls owned and operated by the primary colleges and
universities in the markets of our owned properties typically
charge lower rental rates, but offer fewer amenities than those
charged by our properties. Additionally, most universities are
only able to house a small percentage of their overall
enrollment, and are therefore highly dependant upon the
off-campus market to provide housing for their students.
High-quality, well run off-campus student housing can be a
critical component to an institutions
78
ability to attract and retain students. Therefore, developing
and maintaining good relationships with educational institutions
can result in a privately owned off-campus facility becoming, in
effect, an extension of the institutions housing program,
with the institution providing highly valued references and
recommendations to students and parents.
This segment also competes with national and regional
owner-operators of off-campus student housing in a number of
markets as well as with smaller local owner-operators.
Therefore, the performance of this segment could be affected by
the construction of new off-campus residences in close proximity
to our existing properties, increases or decreases in the
general levels of rents for housing in competing communities,
increases or decreases in the number of students enrolled at one
or more of the colleges or universities in the market of a
property, and other general economic conditions.
|
|
|
On-Campus Participating Properties |
Our On-Campus Participating Properties segment includes
on-campus leaseholds owned by our TRS that are operated under
ground/facility leases with the related university systems. We
participate with two university systems in the operations and
cash flows of five on-campus participating properties (one of
which is currently under construction) under long-term
ground/facility leases. The subject universities hold title to
both the land and improvements on these properties.
Under our ground/facility leases, we receive an annual
distribution representing 50% of these properties net cash
available for distribution after payment of operating expenses
(which includes our management fees), debt service (which
includes repayment of principal) and capital expenditures. We
also manage these properties under multi-year management
agreements and are paid a management fee representing 5% of
receipts.
While the terms of each specific ground/facility lease agreement
tend to vary in certain respects, the following terms are
generally common to all:
|
|
|
|
|
a term of 30-40 years, subject to early termination upon
repayment of the mortgage financing, which generally has a
25-year amortization; |
|
|
|
ground/facility lease rent of a nominal amount (e.g.,
$100 per annum over the lease term) plus 50% of net cash
available for distribution; |
|
|
|
the right of first refusal by the educational institution to
purchase our leasehold interest in the event we propose to sell
it to any third party; |
|
|
|
an obligation by the educational institution to promote the
project, include information relative to the project in
brochures and mailings and to permit us to advertise the project; |
|
|
|
the requirement to receive the educational institutions
consent to increase rental rates by a percentage greater than
the percentage increase in our property operating expenses plus
the amount of any increases in debt service; and |
|
|
|
the option of the educational institution to purchase our
interest in and assume management of the facility, with the
purchase price calculated at the discounted present cash value
of our leasehold interest. |
We do not have access to the cash flows and working capital of
these on-campus participating properties except for the annual
net cash distribution. Additionally, a substantial portion of
these properties cash flow is dedicated to capital
reserves required under the applicable property indebtedness and
to the amortization of such indebtedness. These amounts do not
increase our economic interest in these properties since our
interest, including our right to share in the net cash available
for distribution from the properties, terminates upon the
amortization of their indebtedness. Our economic interest in
these properties is therefore limited to our interest in the net
cash flow and management fees from these properties.
Accordingly, when considering these properties
contribution to our operations, we focus upon our share of these
properties net cash available for distribution and the
management fees that we receive from these
79
properties rather than upon their contribution to our gross
revenues and expenses for financial reporting purposes.
We are one of the nations leaders in the third party
development and management of on-campus housing, which has
allowed us to develop key relationships with colleges and
universities. These relationships, and the corresponding
national reputation that we have developed in this portion of
our business, benefits us when developing and managing our owned
off-campus properties. The revenues we earn from our third party
services comprised approximately 13% of our 2004 revenues as
compared to approximately 16% of our 2003 revenues. We believe
that these services continue to provide synergies with respect
to our ability to identify, acquire or develop, and successfully
operate, student housing properties. These services are
conducted through our TRS and are described below.
While management evaluates the operational performance of our
third party services based on the distinct segments identified
below, at times, we also evaluate these segments on a combined
basis. These services are described below.
Development Services. Our Third Party Development
Services segment consists of development and construction
management services that we provide for third parties that range
from short-term consulting projects to long-term full-scale
development and construction projects. Revenues earned on such
contracts are recognized as deliverables are provided or, in the
case of long-term full-scale development and construction
projects, based on the percentage-of-completion method. We
typically provide these services to colleges and universities
seeking to modernize their on-campus student housing properties.
They look to us to bring our student housing experience and
expertise to ensure they develop marketable, functional and
financially sustainable facilities. Educational institutions
usually seek to build housing that will enhance their
recruitment and retention of students while facilitating their
academic objectives. Most of these development service contracts
are awarded via a competitive request for proposal, or RFP,
process that qualifies developers based on their overall ability
to provide specialized student housing design, development,
construction management, financial structuring and property
management services. Our development services typically include
pre-development, design and financial structuring services. Our
pre-development services typically include feasibility studies
for third party owners and design services. Feasibility studies
include (i) initial feasibility analysis, (ii) review
of conceptual design and (iii) assistance with master
planning. Some of the documents produced in this process include
the conceptual design documents, preliminary development and
operating budgets, cash flow projections and a preliminary
market assessment. Our design services include
(i) coordination with the architect and other members of
the design team, (ii) review of construction plans and
(iii) assistance with project due diligence and project
budgets.
Construction management services typically consist of
coordinating and supervising the construction, equipping and
furnishing process on behalf of the project owner, including
site visits, hiring of a general contractor and project
professionals and full coordination and administration of all
activities necessary for project completion in accordance with
plans and specifications and with verification of adequate
insurance.
Our development services activities benefit our primary goal of
owning and operating student housing properties in a number of
ways. By providing these services to others, we are able to
expand and refine our unit plan and community design, the
operational efficiency of our material specifications and our
ability to determine market acceptance of unit and community
amenities. Our development and construction management personnel
enable us to establish relationships with general contractors,
architects and project professionals throughout the nation.
Through these services, we gain experience and expertise in
residential and commercial construction methodologies under
various labor conditions, including right-to-work labor markets,
markets subject to prevailing wage requirements and fully
unionized environments.
With regard to our third party development services for colleges
and universities, our clients have included some of the
nations most prominent systems of higher education,
including the State University of New York System, the
University of California System, the Texas A&M
University System, the Texas State
80
University System, the University of Georgia System, the
University of North Carolina System, the Purdue University
System and the University of Colorado System. We have developed
student housing properties for these clients and a majority of
the time have been retained to manage these properties following
their opening. As of March 31, 2005, development fees of
approximately $5.1 million remained to be earned by us with
respect to third party development projects. The following table
provides certain information with respect to third party
properties under development as of March 31, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance to be | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Previously | |
|
Earned and | |
|
|
|
|
Total Contractual | |
|
Earned and | |
|
Recognized in | |
|
Scheduled | |
Property |
|
Fee Amount | |
|
Recognized | |
|
2005 and 2006 | |
|
Completion | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Saint Leo University Phase II
|
|
$ |
375 |
|
|
$ |
199 |
|
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
|
Aug 2005 |
|
Vista del Campo Phase II
|
|
|
3,501 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
3,333 |
|
|
|
Aug 2006 |
|
West Virginia University pre-development services
|
|
|
400 |
(1) |
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
Jun 2005 |
|
Fenn Tower Renovation
|
|
|
1,509 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1,499 |
|
|
|
Aug 2006 |
|
Lamar University Dining Hall
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
Nov 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
5,895 |
|
|
$ |
769 |
|
|
$ |
5,126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Net of approximately $0.6 million of costs anticipated to
be incurred to complete the project. |
In addition, as of March 31, 2005, we have been selected to
perform construction administration services related to a
student housing property for West Virginia University. These
services provide a net construction administration fee of
approximately $0.3 million and are anticipated to commence
in August 2005. We have also received a Notice of Intent
to Award from Arizona State University indicating that we
have been selected to provide design, development and management
of student housing on the Tempe Campus. In addition, we have
also been selected by Hope International University in
Fullerton, California to design and oversee a comprehensive
redevelopment of its campus, including the development of
residence halls, student apartments and faculty housing. Subject
to the successful structuring and closing of the Arizona State
and Hope transactions, we anticipate that the projects will
commence construction during the second or third quarter of 2006.
Property Management Services. Our Third Party Property
Management Services segment includes revenues generated from
third party management contracts in which we are typically
responsible for all aspects of a propertys operations,
including marketing, leasing administration, facilities
maintenance, business administration, accounts payable, accounts
receivable, financial reporting, capital projects and residence
life student development. As of March 31, 2005, we provided
third party management services for 19 student housing
properties that represented approximately 11,300 beds in
approximately 4,500 units, 13 of which we developed. We
provide these services pursuant to multi-year management
agreements (generally ranging between two to five years).
Competition
|
|
|
Competition from Universities and Colleges |
We are subject to competition for student-tenants from on-campus
housing operated by educational institutions, charitable
foundations and others. On-campus student housing has certain
inherent advantages over off-campus student housing in terms of
physical proximity to the university campus, captive student
body, perception of a more secure environment and the fuller
integration of on-campus facilities into the academic community.
Colleges and universities can generally avoid real estate taxes
and borrow funds at lower interest rates than us (and other
private sector operators), thereby decreasing their costs of
operating new on-campus student housing. Residence halls owned
and operated by the primary colleges and universities in the
markets of our owned properties typically charge lower rental
rates, but offer fewer amenities than those charged by our
properties.
81
On the other hand, most universities are able to house only a
small percentage of their overall enrollment, and are therefore
highly dependant upon the off-campus market to provide housing
for their students. High-quality, well run off-campus student
housing can be a critical component to an institutions
ability to attract and retain students. Accordingly, a
university or college, rather than being a competitor, may
actually become a potential customer of off-campus student
housing. Developing and maintaining a good relationship with an
educational institution can result in a privately owned
off-campus facility becoming, in effect, an extension of the
institutions housing program, with the institution
providing highly valued references and recommendations to
students and parents.
|
|
|
Competition from Public and Private Owners |
We compete with several regional and national owner-operators of
off-campus student housing in a number of markets, including GMH
Communities Trust and Education Realty Trust, Inc., each of
which has recently completed an initial public offering of its
common stock and, in connection therewith, has publicly
disclosed its intention to grow its student housing business. We
also compete with smaller local or regional owner-operators.
Currently, the industry is fragmented with no participant
holding a significant market share. There are a number of
student housing complexes that are located near to or in the
same general vicinity of many of our owned properties and that
compete directly with us. We believe that a number of other
large national companies with substantial financial resources
may be potential entrants in the student housing business. The
entry of one or more of these companies could increase
competition for students and for the acquisition or development
of other student housing properties.
Our Properties
Our properties generally are modern facilities, and amenities at
most of our properties include a swimming pool, basketball
courts and a large community center featuring a fitness center,
computer center, tanning beds, study areas and a recreation room
with billiards and other games. Some properties also have a
jacuzzi/hot tub, volleyball courts, tennis courts and in-unit
washers and dryers. Two of our off-campus properties completed
development and opened in Fall 2004, one owned off-campus
property is currently under construction with a scheduled
completion date of August 2005, and one on-campus participating
property is currently under construction with a scheduled
completion date of August 2005. Lease terms are generally
12 months at our off-campus properties and 9 months at
our on-campus participating properties. The average age of our
properties is 4.7 years.
We own fee title to all of these properties except for:
|
|
|
|
|
The Callaway House, in which we own an 80% partnership interest
and are entitled to significant preferred distributions; |
|
|
|
University Village at TU, which is subject to a 75-year ground
lease from Temple University (with four additional six-year
extensions); and |
|
|
|
Five on-campus participating properties held under
ground/facility leases with two university systems. |
82
The following table presents certain information about our owned
property portfolio as of March 31, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Occupancy | |
|
|
|
|
Property |
|
Developed |
|
Location | |
|
Primary University Served |
|
Rates (1) | |
|
Units | |
|
Beds | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Off-Campus Properties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Commons On Apache
|
|
1999 |
|
|
Tempe, AZ |
|
|
Arizona State University Main Campus |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
444 |
|
2. The Village at Blacksburg
|
|
2000 |
|
|
Blacksburg, VA |
|
|
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |
|
|
98.6 |
% |
|
|
288 |
|
|
|
1,056 |
|
3. The Village on University
|
|
1999 |
|
|
Tempe, AZ |
|
|
Arizona State University Main Campus |
|
|
99.1 |
% |
|
|
288 |
|
|
|
918 |
|
4. River Club Apartments
|
|
1999 |
|
|
Athens, GA |
|
|
The University of Georgia Athens |
|
|
95.5 |
% |
|
|
266 |
|
|
|
794 |
|
5. River Walk Townhomes
|
|
1999 |
|
|
Athens, GA |
|
|
The University of Georgia Athens |
|
|
97.1 |
% |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
340 |
|
6. The Callaway House(2)
|
|
2001 |
|
|
College Station, TX |
|
|
Texas A&M University |
|
|
101.3 |
% |
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
538 |
|
7. The Village at Alafaya Club
|
|
2000 |
|
|
Orlando, FL |
|
|
The University of Central Florida |
|
|
97.4 |
% |
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
840 |
|
8. The Village at Science Drive
|
|
2001 |
|
|
Orlando, FL |
|
|
The University of Central Florida |
|
|
99.3 |
% |
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
732 |
|
9. University Village at Boulder Creek
|
|
2002 |
|
|
Boulder, CO |
|
|
The University of Colorado at Boulder |
|
|
87.7 |
% |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
309 |
|
10. University Village at Fresno
|
|
2004 |
|
|
Fresno, CA |
|
|
California State University, Fresno |
|
|
98.8 |
% |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
406 |
|
11. University Village at TU
|
|
2004 |
|
|
Philadelphia, PA |
|
|
Temple University |
|
|
98.8 |
% |
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
749 |
|
12. University Village at Sweet Home(3)
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Amherst, NY |
|
|
State University of New York Buffalo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
269 |
|
|
|
828 |
|
13. University Club Tallahassee
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Tallahassee, FL |
|
|
Florida State University |
|
|
93.4 |
% |
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
608 |
|
14. The Grove at University Club
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Tallahassee, FL |
|
|
Florida State University |
|
|
98.4 |
% |
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
128 |
|
15. College Club Tallahassee
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Tallahassee, FL |
|
|
Florida A&M University |
|
|
92.4 |
% |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
384 |
|
16. The Greens at College Club
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Tallahassee, FL |
|
|
Florida A&M University |
|
|
96.9 |
% |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
17. University Club Gainesville
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Gainesville, FL |
|
|
University of Florida |
|
|
98.9 |
% |
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
376 |
|
18. City Parc at Fry Street
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Denton, TX |
|
|
University of North Texas |
|
|
94.7 |
% |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
19. Exchange at Gainesville (to be renamed)
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Gainesville, FL |
|
|
University of Florida |
|
|
95.6 |
% |
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
1,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total off-campus properties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97.2 |
% |
|
|
3,300 |
|
|
|
11,072 |
|
On-Campus Participating Properties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20. University Village PVAMU
|
|
1996/97/98 |
|
|
Prairie View, TX |
|
|
Prairie View A&M University |
|
|
93.0 |
% |
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
1,920 |
|
21. University College PVAMU
|
|
2000/2003 |
|
|
Prairie View, TX |
|
|
Prairie View A&M University |
|
|
95.0 |
% |
|
|
756 |
|
|
|
1,470 |
|
22. University Village TAMIU
|
|
1997 |
|
|
Laredo, TX |
|
|
Texas A&M International University |
|
|
70.2 |
% |
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
252 |
|
23. Cullen Oaks Phase I
|
|
2001 |
|
|
Houston, TX |
|
|
The University of Houston |
|
|
99.6 |
% |
|
|
231 |
|
|
|
525 |
|
24. Cullen Oaks Phase II(3)
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Houston, TX |
|
|
The University of Houston |
|
|
|
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
354 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total on-campus participating properties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93.1 |
% |
|
|
1,863 |
|
|
|
4,521 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total all properties
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96.0 |
% |
|
|
5,163 |
|
|
|
15,593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Occupancy rates are calculated as of March 31, 2005.
Occupancy is based on the number of total occupied beds
(including beds occupied by staff) divided by total beds. |
|
(2) |
Also has a food service facility. |
|
(3) |
Currently under development with a scheduled completion date of
August 2005. |
83
The following table sets forth certain comparative information
as of May 27, 2005 and May 28, 2004 (the last Friday
in May for each period reported) regarding the leasing status of
our owned off-campus properties for the 2005/2006 and 2004/2005
academic years, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applications | |
|
% of | |
|
Applications | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Leases | |
|
Rentable | |
|
and Leases | |
|
Variance to | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
as of | |
|
Beds as of | |
|
as of | |
|
Prior Year | |
|
|
|
Total | |
|
|
May 27, | |
|
May 27, | |
|
May 28, | |
|
| |
|
Rentable | |
|
Design | |
Applications and Leases |
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
Beds | |
|
% | |
|
Beds(1) | |
|
Beds | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Commons of Apache
|
|
|
444 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
444 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
444 |
|
|
|
444 |
|
The Village at Blacksburg
|
|
|
1,034 |
|
|
|
98.7 |
% |
|
|
1,030 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
% |
|
|
1,048 |
|
|
|
1,056 |
|
The Village on University
|
|
|
515 |
|
|
|
56.7 |
% |
|
|
656 |
|
|
|
(141 |
) |
|
|
(21.5 |
)% |
|
|
909 |
|
|
|
918 |
|
River Club Apartments
|
|
|
719 |
|
|
|
92.8 |
% |
|
|
543 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
32.4 |
% |
|
|
775 |
|
|
|
794 |
|
River Walk Townhomes
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
88.9 |
% |
|
|
316 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(6.3 |
)% |
|
|
333 |
|
|
|
340 |
|
The Callaway House
|
|
|
642 |
|
|
|
121.8 |
% |
|
|
569 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
12.8 |
% |
|
|
527 |
|
|
|
538 |
|
The Village at Alafaya Club
|
|
|
581 |
|
|
|
70.1 |
% |
|
|
586 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(0.9 |
)% |
|
|
829 |
|
|
|
840 |
|
The Village at Science Drive
|
|
|
717 |
|
|
|
99.3 |
% |
|
|
718 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(0.1 |
)% |
|
|
722 |
|
|
|
732 |
|
University Village at Boulder Creek
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
56.2 |
% |
|
|
218 |
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
(22.9 |
)% |
|
|
299 |
|
|
|
309 |
|
University Village Fresno
|
|
|
336 |
|
|
|
84.8 |
% |
|
|
218 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
54.1 |
% |
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
406 |
|
University Village at TU
|
|
|
728 |
|
|
|
99.3 |
% |
|
|
734 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(0.8 |
)% |
|
|
733 |
|
|
|
749 |
|
University Village at Sweet Home
|
|
|
835 |
|
|
|
102.2 |
% |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
817 |
|
|
|
828 |
|
University Club Tallahassee(2)
|
|
|
744 |
|
|
|
102.5 |
% |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
726 |
|
|
|
736 |
|
College Club Tallahassee(3)
|
|
|
392 |
|
|
|
73.1 |
% |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
536 |
|
|
|
544 |
|
University Club Gainesville
|
|
|
267 |
|
|
|
71.8 |
% |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
372 |
|
|
|
376 |
|
City Parc at Fry Street
|
|
|
196 |
|
|
|
47.6 |
% |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
412 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
Exchange at Gainesville (to be renamed)
|
|
|
949 |
|
|
|
92.0 |
% |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
1,032 |
|
|
|
1,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,910 |
|
|
|
11,072 |
|
&n |