UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

þ		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007

o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                      to

Education Realty Trust, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

Maryland		20-1352180
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
530 Oak Court Drive, Suite 300		38117
Memphis Tennessee		(Zip Code)
(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (901) 259-2500
Securities registered pursuant to section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of class		Name of exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $.01 par value per share		New York Stock Exchange

Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Yes o No þ

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No þ

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding twelve months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer o		Accelerated filer þ		Non-accelerated filer   o		Smaller reporting company o

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a shell company (as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes o No þ

As of June 30, 2007, the aggregate market value of the registrants common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $397 million, based on the closing sales price of $14.03 per share as reported on the New York Stock Exchange. (For purposes of this calculation all of the registrant’s directors and executive officers are deemed affiliates of the registrant.)

As of February 28, 2008, the Registrant had 28,506,966 shares of common stock outstanding.

 

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The Registrant incorporates by reference portions of its Definitive Proxy Statement for the 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders into Part III of this Form 10-K to the extent stated herein.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Our disclosure and analysis in this document and in the documents that are or will be incorporated by reference into this document contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements provide our current expectations or forecasts of future events and are not statements of historical fact. These forward-looking statements include information about possible or assumed future events, including, among other things discussion and analysis of the financial condition of Education Realty Trust, Inc., our strategic plans and objectives, anticipated capital expenditures required to complete projects, amounts of anticipated cash distributions to our stockholders in the future and other matters. Words such as “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates” and variations of these words and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, some of which are beyond our control, are difficult to predict and could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or forecasted in the forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements that were true at the time made may ultimately prove to be incorrect or false. You are cautioned to not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which reflect our management’s view only as of the date of this Annual Report. We undertake no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events or changes to future operating results. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from any forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report include changes in general economic conditions, changes in real estate conditions, construction costs that may exceed estimates, construction delays, increases in interest rates, lease-up risks, inability to obtain new tenants upon the expiration of existing leases, and the potential need to fund tenant improvements or other capital expenditures out of operating cash flow. The forward-looking statements should be read in light of these factors and the factors identified in “Item 1A — Risk Factors” below.

EDUCATION REALTY TRUST, INC.      FISCAL 2007      FORM 10-K

PART I
Item 1. Business			4
Item 1A. Risk Factors			12
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments			22
Item 2. Properties			23
Item 3. Legal Proceedings			26
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders			26
PART II
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities			27
Item 6. Selected Financial Data			29
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			33
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk			50
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data			51
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure			98
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures			98
Item 9B. Other Information			98
PART III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance			98
Item 11. Executive Compensation			98
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters			98
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence			99
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services			99
PART IV
Item 15. Signatures			100
Exhibits			101
EX-21.1 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
EX-23.1 CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
EX-23.2 CONSENT OF WINDHAM BRANNON, P.L.
EX-23.3 CONSENT OF REZNICK GROUP, P.C.
EX-31.1 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF THE PEO
EX-31.2 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF THE PFO
EX-32.1 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF THE PEO AND PFO

PART I

Item 1. Business.

(Dollars in thousands, except selected property information and share data)

Our Company

Education Realty Trust, Inc., which we refer to as EDR or the Trust, is a self-managed and self-advised real estate investment trust, or REIT, organized in July 2004 to develop, acquire, own and manage high quality student housing communities located near university campuses. We were formed to continue and expand upon the student housing business of Allen & O’Hara, Inc., or the EDR Predecessor, a company with over 40 years of experience as an owner, manager and developer of student housing. As of December 31, 2007, we own 39 student housing communities located in 17 states containing 24,463 beds in 7,466 apartment units located near 32 universities. As of December 31, 2007, we provide third-party management services for 27 student housing communities located in 11 states containing 15,453 beds in 4,750 apartment units at 20 universities. We also provide third-party development consulting services on student housing development projects mostly for universities but also for our own ownership and other third parties.

Initial Public Offering and Formation Transactions

On January 31, 2005, or the Closing Date, we sold 21,850,000 shares of our common stock at an offering price of $16.00 per share, including the sale of 2,850,000 shares in connection with the full exercise of the over-allotment option by the underwriters of our initial public offering, or the Offering. Simultaneous with the Offering, we completed our Formation Transactions, which included the contribution of the student housing business of the EDR Predecessor and its subsidiaries, purchase of the related minority interests in the EDR Predecessor and its subsidiaries and the acquisition of 14 student housing communities previously owned by JPI Investment Company, L.P. and its affiliates, or JPI. The net proceeds of the Offering after expenses were approximately $320,400.

Following the closing of our Offering and our Formation Transactions, substantially all of our assets are held by, and we have conducted substantially all of our activities through Education Realty Operating Partnership, LP, our Operating Partnership, and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Allen & O’Hara Education Services, Inc., which we refer to as our Management Company or AOES and Allen & O’Hara Development Company, LLC, which we refer to as our Development Company or AODC. The majority of our operating expenses are borne by our Operating Partnership, our Management Company or our Development Company, as the case may be.

We are the sole general partner of our Operating Partnership. As a result, our board of directors effectively directs all of our Operating Partnership’s affairs. We own 96.0% of the outstanding partnership units of our Operating Partnership, and 3.1% of the partnership units are held by the former owners of our initial properties and assets, including members of our management team. Some of our officers also own an indirect interest in our Operating Partnership, which we refer to as “profits interest units,” which is held through ownership of units in Education Realty Limited Partner, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company controlled by us and that holds 0.9% of the aggregate interests in our Operating Partnership.

Since the Closing Date, University Towers Operating Partnership, LP, or the University Towers Partnership, which is our affiliate, has held, owned and operated our University Towers property located in Raleigh, North Carolina. We own 67.0% of the units in the University Towers Partnership, and 33.0% of the University Towers Partnership is held by the former owners of our initial properties and assets including members of our management team.

REIT Status and Taxable REIT Subsidiary

We have elected to be taxed as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, for federal income tax purposes. With the exception of income from our “taxable REIT subsidiary” or TRS, income earned under the REIT is not subject to income taxes. In order to qualify as a REIT, a specified percentage of our gross income must be derived from real property sources, which would generally exclude our income from providing development and management services to third parties as well as our income from certain services afforded to our student-tenants. In order to avoid realizing such income in a manner that would adversely affect our ability to qualify as a REIT, we provide some services through our Management Company and our Development Company, with our Management Company electing, together with us, to be treated as our TRS. Our

Management Company is wholly owned and controlled by our Operating Partnership, and our Management Company wholly owns our Development Company. Our Development Company is a disregarded entity for federal income tax purposes and all assets owned and earned by our Development Company are deemed to be owned and earned by our Management Company.

Business and Growth Strategy

Our primary business objectives are to maximize cash flow available for distribution to our stockholders, and to achieve sustainable long-term growth in cash flow per share in order to maximize long-term stockholder value. We intend to achieve these objectives by (i) acquiring student housing communities nationwide that meet our focused investment criteria, (ii) maximizing net operating income from the operation of our owned properties through proactive and goal-oriented property management strategies, (iii) building our third-party business of management services and development consulting services and (iv) selectively developing properties for our own account.

Acquisition Strategy

We seek to acquire high quality, well-designed and well-located properties, with a focus on off-campus garden-style communities with modern floor plans and amenities. Our ideal acquisition targets generally are located in markets that have stable or increasing student populations and an insufficient supply of student housing. We also seek to acquire investments in student housing communities that possess sound market fundamentals but are under-performing and would benefit from re-positioning, renovation and/or improved property management. We consider the following property and market factors to identify potential property acquisitions:

	•		university and campus reputation;
	•		competitive admissions criteria;
	•		limited number of on-campus beds and limited plans for expansion;
	•		distance of property from campus;
	•		property unit mix;
	•		competition;
	•		significant out-of-state enrollment;
	•		past operating performance;
	•		potential for improved management;
	•		ownership and capital structure;
	•		presence of desired amenities;
	•		maintenance and condition of the property;
	•		access to a university-sponsored or public transportation line; and
	•		parking availability.

In addition to the initial properties that we acquired on the Closing Date, we acquired an additional five properties in individual transactions throughout 2005. The five transactions had an aggregate purchase price of approximately $119,800 including the assumption of mortgage debt totaling $48,700. In January 2006, we acquired 13 student housing properties referred to as the Place Portfolio for $205,000, which includes the assumption of mortgage debt of $98,660, and in June 2006, we also acquired the Players Club property in Statesboro, Georgia for a purchase price of $12,900. Furthermore, in 2006 our senior management team utilized existing relationships with equity investors to acquire University Village Towers in Riverside, California, The Reserve on Stinson in Norman, Oklahoma and Fontainebleu in Santa Barbara, California through joint venture arrangements. In 2007, the development and construction of University Village in Greensboro, North Carolina was completed under a joint venture arrangement and the Trust will continue to hold an interest in the property going forward. Under the joint venture agreements, we hold a minority ownership interest in the properties and earn a fee for the management of the properties. This strategy enables us to accretively diversify our portfolio by expanding into geographic markets where we are not currently present with lower capital requirements than if we acquired the properties on our own. We expect to continue pursuing these types of arrangements in the future.

Also in 2007, we acquired land in Carbondale, Illinois and began construction on a student housing community near Southern Illinois University. This represents the first community EDR is developing and building for its own ownership since becoming a public company.

Operating Strategy

We seek to maximize funds from the operations of the student

housing communities that we own and manage through the following operational strategies.

Maximize property profitability. We seek to maximize property-level profitability through the use of cost control systems and our focused on-site management personnel. Some of our specific cost control initiatives include:

	•		establishing internal controls and procedures for cost control consistently throughout our communities;
	•		operating with flat property-level management structures, minimizing multiple layers of management;
	•		negotiating service-level pricing arrangements with national and regional vendors and requiring corporate-level approval of service agreements for each community; and
	•		conducting an annual assessment of the costs and effectiveness of each of our marketing strategies in order to place greater emphasis on lower cost/high-impact initiatives.

Proactive marketing practices. We have developed and implemented proactive marketing practices to enhance the visibility of our student housing communities and to optimize our occupancy rates. We thoroughly study our competitors, our residents and university policies affecting enrollment and housing. Based on our findings at each property, we formulate a marketing and sales plan for each academic leasing period. This plan is closely monitored and adjusted, if need be, throughout the leasing period. We intend to continue to market our properties to students, parents and universities by emphasizing student-oriented living areas, state-of-the-art technology infrastructure, a wide variety of amenities and services and close proximity to the campus.

Develop and retain personnel. We staff each student housing community that we own or manage with a full-service on-site property management team. Each of our property management teams includes community assistants who plan activities and interact with students, enhancing their college experiences. We have developed policies and procedures to train each team of on-site employees and to provide them with corporate-based support for each essential operating function. To retain employees, we have developed an incentive-based compensation structure that is available to all of our on-site personnel.

Maintain and develop strategic relationships. We believe that establishing and maintaining relationships with universities is important to the ongoing success of our business. We believe that these relationships will continue to provide us with referrals that enhance our leasing efforts, opportunities for additional acquisitions of student housing communities and contracts for third-party services.

Third-Party Services

In addition to managing our owned student housing communities and developing communities for our ownership, we also provide management and development consulting services for third-parties. Universities and other third-party owners are increasingly turning to the private sector for assistance in developing and managing their student housing properties. We perform third-party services in order to enhance our reputation with universities and to benefit our primary goal of owning high quality student housing communities. We perform third-party services for student housing communities serving some of the nation’s most prominent systems of higher education, including the University of North Carolina, the University of Illinois, the California State University System, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education and the University of Alabama System.

In order to comply with the rules applicable to our status as a REIT, we provide our third-party services through our Management Company and our Development Company. Unlike the income earned from our properties under the REIT, the income earned by our Management Company and our Development Company is subject to regular federal income tax and state and local income taxes where applicable.

Third-party management services

We provide third-party management services for student housing communities owned by educational institutions, charitable foundations and others. Our management services typically cover all aspects of operations, including residence life and student development, marketing, leasing administration, strategic relationships, information systems and accounting services. These services are comparable to the services that we provide for our owned properties. We typically provide these services pursuant to multi-year management contracts that have an initial term between five and ten years. We believe that providing these services allows

us to increase cash flow with little incremental cost by leveraging our existing management expertise and infrastructure. For the year ended December 31, 2007, our fees from third-party management services, excluding operating expense reimbursements represented 3.1% of our revenues.

The following table presents certain summary information regarding the student housing communities that we managed for other owners as of December 31, 2007:

Property		University		# of Beds				# of Units
On-campus properties
University Park — Calhoun Street Apartments		University of Cincinnati			747				288
Reinhard Villages		Clarion University of Pennsylvania			656				180
University Park		Salisbury University (Maryland)			578				145
University Park — Phase II		Salisbury University (Maryland)			312				108
Bettie Johnson Hall		University of Louisville			490				224
Herman & Heddy Kurz Hall		University of Louisville			402				224
Billy Minardi Hall		University of Louisville			38				20
Community Park		University of Louisville			358				101
University Village		California State University — San Marcos			620				126
Arlington Park Apartments		University of Northern Colorado			394				179
Blazer Hall		University of Alabama — Birmingham			753				190
Total on-campus					5,348				1,785
Off-campus properties
Granville Towers		University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill			1,321				349
Illini Tower		University of Illinois at Champaign			725				206
Honeysuckle Apartments		Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania			407				104
Evergreen Commons		Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania			408				108
Campus Village		University of Colorado — Denver			685				210
The College Inn		North Carolina State University			440				121
Village at Chandler Crossing I		Michigan State & Central Michigan University			732				252
Village at Chandler Crossing II		Michigan State & Central Michigan University			336				84
The Club at Chandler Crossing		Michigan State & Central Michigan University			768				210
Landing at Chandler Crossing		Michigan State & Central Michigan University			936				306
The Village at Bluegrass		Michigan State & Central Michigan University			744				228
Upper Eastside Lofts		Sacramento State University			408				132
University Village (1)		University of North Carolina - Greensboro			600				203
University Village Towers (1)		University of California - Riverside			548				149
The Reserve on Stinson (1)		University of Oklahoma			612				204
Fontainebleu (1)		University of California - Santa Barbara			435				99
Total off-campus					10,105				2,965
Totals (for both on- and off-campus)					15,453				4,750

Third-party development consulting services

We provide third-party development consulting services primarily to universities seeking to modernize their on-campus student housing communities but also to other third-party investors. Our development consulting services typically include the following:

	•		market analysis and evaluation of housing needs and options;
	•		cooperation with university in architectural design;

	•		negotiation of ground lease, development agreement, construction contract, architectural contract and bond documents;
	•		oversight of architectural design process;
	•		coordination of governmental and university plan approvals;
	•		oversight of construction process;
	•		design, purchase and installation of furniture;
	•		pre-opening marketing to students; and
	•		obtaining final approvals of construction.

By providing these services, we are able to observe emerging trends in student housing development and market acceptance of unit and community amenities. Our development consulting services also provide us with opportunities to obtain additional third-party property management contracts. Of the 25 student housing communities we have provided development-consulting services to since 2000, the property owners have awarded us third-party management services contracts for 15 with 10 universities electing to manage the communities in house under their existing infrastructure. In 2007, our fees from third-party development consulting services, excluding operating expense reimbursements, represented 4.9% of our revenues.

Since 2000, we have provided third-party development consulting services to clients for projects totaling over $1,000,000 in value. We are currently providing third-party development services to Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and to third parties near the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and the University of California — Santa Barbara pursuant to signed definitive contracts. The aggregate project cost of these four projects is approximately $191,500. Additionally, we are providing pre-development, construction and management consulting services on a new project at West Chester University of Pennsylvania and an additional phase at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. In aggregate, these total approximately $154,000 in project costs. We typically are notified that we have been awarded development consulting services projects on the basis of a competitive award process and thereafter begin to work on the project. In the case of tax exempt bond financed projects, definitive contracts are not executed until bond closing.

Our Operations

We staff each of our owned and managed student housing communities with a full-service property management team. We typically staff each property with one Community Manager, a marketing/leasing manager, a student accounts manager, a resident services director, a maintenance supervisor, one on-site resident Community Assistant for each 50-85 students and general office staff. Each property management team markets, leases and manages the community with a focus on maximizing its profitability. In addition, each property management team is trained to provide social and developmental opportunities for students, enhancing the students’ college experiences as well as the desirability of our communities.

We have developed policies and procedures to carefully select and develop each team of on-site employees and to provide each team with corporate-based support for each essential operating area, including lease administration, sales/marketing, community and university relations, student life administration, maintenance and loss prevention, accounting, human resources/benefits administration and information systems. The corporate level personnel responsible for each of these areas support each community manager’s leadership role, and are available as a resource to the community managers around the clock.

Residence Life and Student Development

Our corporate director of residence life and student personnel development designs and directs our residence life program. Our programs are developed at the corporate level and implemented at each community by our community assistants, together with our other on-site personnel. We provide educational, social and recreational activities designed to help students achieve academic goals, promote respect and harmony throughout the community, and help bridge interaction with the respective university. Examples of our residence life and student development programs include:

	•		community-building and social activities geared to university-related events, holidays, public safety and education;
	•		study and attention skills counseling;
	•		career development, resume writing and employment search skill training;

	•		sponsorship of intramural sport teams, academic clubs and alumni-based activities;
	•		parent and resident appreciation events;
	•		community service activities including recycling, blood drives, food drives and student volunteer committees;
	•		lectures focused on social issues, including effective communication, multi-cultural awareness and substance abuse;
	•		university outreach activities; and
	•		voter registration, enrollment and education.

The Community Assistants perform key roles in the administrative functioning of the community and interface with students through constructive programs, activities and listening to student interests and concerns. Our on-site leadership selects students to serve as Community Assistants who meet criteria established by our corporate director of residence life and student personnel development.

Marketing

We begin our annual marketing campaign by thoroughly segmenting the student population attending each of the primary universities where our student housing communities are located, and compiling market surveys of comparable student apartment properties. With this information in hand, we formulate a marketing/sales strategy that consists of a renewal campaign for current residents and a broader campaign directed at the eligible student population. We assess university regulations regarding housing requirements to avoid targeting markets in which significant numbers of students are not eligible to live off-campus until they achieve certain credit hour levels.

We begin our renewal campaign between November and January of each year. Signage, direct mailings to the students and their parents, appreciation parties and staff selling incentives are key elements of the renewal campaign. The Community Assistant team plays a key role in communicating the renewal message throughout their assigned property area. We use a database of current resident demographic data to direct sales information to primary feeder high schools, particularly where new freshmen are eligible to live off-campus. Other database criteria include gender, high school location, prior apartment community, academic class standing, field of study and activity preferences.

We appeal to the greater university population through theme-based newspaper advertising campaigns, open house activities, housing fairs conducted by the university and, where effective, web-based advertising. Our Community Assistant staff targets certain university-sponsored on-campus events to distribute handouts displaying our logo and offering incentives to visit our sales center. Wherever possible, our student housing communities appear on university websites in listings of off-campus housing options, together with banner advertising where available.

Leasing

Our standard lease begins in August and runs for approximately 11.5 months, ending July 31 or early August to coincide with the university’s fall academic term. The primary exception to our standard lease term is our University Towers community, which we generally rent on nine-month academic year leases. Our standard lease is an agreement between the student and parental guarantor, and the specific student housing community. All leases are for a bed, in a private or shared bedroom, with rights to share common areas within the unit and throughout the community. The “individual lease” is a strong selling attraction as it limits a student’s liability to the rental for one bedroom instead of burdening the student with shared liability for the entire unit rental amount.

We lease our units by floor plan type using internally-generated occupancy spreadsheets to maximize full leasing of entire units, avoiding spotty vacancies particularly in the four-bedroom units. We offer roommate-matching services to facilitate full occupancy. We develop wait lists and monitor popular floor plans that fill to capacity early in the leasing season. If any fully vacant units remain available after the beginning of any academic semester, we seek to lease such units on a temporary basis to university-related visitors and our tenants’ parents and family members, or keep them available for future leasing to students.

Unlike conventional apartment communities that have monthly move-outs and renewals, our student housing community occupancies remain relatively stable throughout the academic year, but must be entirely re-leased at the beginning of each academic year. Because of the nature of leasing to students, we are highly dependent upon the success of our marketing and leasing efforts during the annual leasing season, generally

November through August. Our leasing staff undergoes intensive annual professional training to maximize the success of our leasing efforts.

We typically require rent to be paid in 12 equal monthly payments throughout the lease term, with the first installment due on July 1. Residents of University Towers and residence halls that we manage for third parties typically pay their annual rent in two installments on July 1 and December 1. We replace contracted students who fail to pay the first installment with students on our waiting list or from walk-in traffic while the market is still active with students seeking housing at the commencement of the academic year.

Strategic Relationships

We assign high priority to establishing and nurturing relationships with the administration of each of the primary universities where our student housing communities are located. Our corporate staff establishes this network, and on-site management then sustains it with follow-up by corporate staff during routine visits to the community. As a result of our strategic relationships, universities often refer their students to our properties, thus enhancing our leasing effort throughout the year. These networks create goodwill for our student housing communities throughout the university administration, including departments of admissions, student affairs, public safety, athletics and international affairs.

Most universities promote off-campus housing alternatives to their student population. It is our intention to be among the most preferred off-campus residences and for universities to include our communities in listings and literature provided to students. We seek to obtain student mailing lists and to be featured in Internet-based student housing listings wherever permitted by the institution and incorporate these initiatives into our marketing efforts. Our Community Managers make scheduled personal visits with academic departments to further our community exposure at this level.

Our senior management team has developed long-standing relationships with developers, owners and brokers of student housing properties that allow us to identify and capitalize on acquisition opportunities. As a result, we have generated an internal database of contacts that we use to identify and evaluate acquisition candidates. As it is our intention to develop a diverse portfolio of student housing communities, we also develop strategic relationships with equity investors in order to pursue acquisitions through joint venture arrangements. Acquisitions, through joint venture arrangements, allow us to obtain a minority interest in student housing communities in geographic markets where we are not currently present with less capital than if we acquired the properties on our own.

Competition

Competition from universities

We compete for student tenants with the owners of on-campus student housing, which is generally owned by educational institutions or charitable foundations. Educational institutions can generally avoid real estate taxes and borrow funds at lower interest rates, while we and other private sector operators pay full real estate tax rates and have higher borrowing costs. The competitive advantages of on-campus student housing also include its physical proximity to the university campus and captive student body. Many universities have policies requiring students to live in their on-campus facilities during their freshman year.

On-campus housing is limited, however, and most universities are able to house only a small percentage of their students. As a result, educational institutions depend upon, and may serve as referral sources for, private providers of off-campus housing. In addition, off-campus housing facilities tend to offer more relaxed rules and regulations than on-campus properties and therefore tend to be more appealing to students. Off-campus student housing offers freedom from restrictions such as quiet hours or gender visitation limitations, and is especially appealing to upperclassmen who are transitioning towards their independence.

Competition from private owners

We compete with several regional and national owner-operators of off-campus student housing, including two publicly-traded competitors, GMH Communities Trust (GCT) and American Campus Communities, Inc. (ACC). We also compete with privately held developers and other real estate firms and in a number of markets with smaller local owner-operators. Currently, the industry is fragmented with no participant holding a dominant market share. 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,

management and development of student housing properties.

Employees

At December 31, 2007, we had approximately 1,196 employees, including:

	•		1,110 on-site employees, including 448 Community Assistants;
	•		17 people in our property management services department;
	•		14 people in our development consulting services department; and
	•		55 executive, corporate administration and financial personnel.

Our senior management team has over 200 years of collective experience working together in the EDR Predecessor’s student housing business. Our management team’s in-depth knowledge of the student housing industry results from hands-on experiences. Several of our executive officers began their careers as student-tenant employees or community managers responsible for managing individual student housing communities. The following table demonstrates our management team’s extensive experience in the student housing industry:

				Number
Key Employees		Title		of Years
Paul O. Bower		Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President			38
Craig L. Cardwell		President of Allen & O’Hara Education Services, Inc.			36
Thomas J. Hickey		Senior Vice President of Allen & O’Hara Education Services, Inc.			35
Wallace L. Wilcox		Vice President of Construction			27
William W. Harris		President of Allen & O’Hara Development Company			25
Thomas Trubiana		Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer			31
Susan B. Arrison		Vice President of Human Resources			17
Randall H. Brown		Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer			8

NYSE Certifications

Our CEO certified to the New York Stock Exchange in 2007 that we were in compliance with the NYSE listing standards. Our CEO and CFO have executed the certifications required by section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which are contained herein as exhibits to this Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

We have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to all employees. It is available in the corporate governance section of our investor website at www.educationrealty.com.

Available Information

EDR files annual and periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. All filings made by EDR with the SEC may be copied or read at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC also maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC as the Company does. The website is http://www.sec.gov.

Additionally, a copy of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, along with EDR’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to the aforementioned filings, are available on EDR’s website, www.educationrealty.com, free of charge. The filings can be found in the SEC filings section of our website. EDR’s website also contains its Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the charters of the committees of the Board of Directors. These items can be found in the Corporate Governance section of our website. Reference to the Company’s website does not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the site and should not be considered part of this document. All of the aforementioned materials may also be obtained free of charge by contacting the Investor Relations Department at Education Realty Trust, Inc., 530 Oak Court Drive, Suite 300, Memphis, Tennessee 38117.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Risks related to our properties and our business

Our results of operations are subject to the following risks inherent in the student housing industry: annual leasing cycle, concentrated lease-up period, seasonal cash flows and increased risk of student defaults during the summer months of a twelve-month lease.

We generally lease our properties under 11.5 month leases, but we may also lease for terms of nine months or less. As a result, we may experience significantly reduced cash flows during the summer months at properties leased for terms shorter than twelve months. In addition, students leasing under twelve-month leases may be more likely to default on their rental payments during the summer months. Although we typically require a student’s parents to guarantee the student’s lease, we may have to spend considerable effort and expense in pursuing payment upon a defaulted lease, and our efforts may not be successful. 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 properties that we acquire that we have not previously managed due to our lack of experience leasing those properties and unfamiliarity with their leasing cycles. Student housing communities are typically leased during a leasing season that begins in November 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. Prior to the commencement of each new lease period, mostly during the first two weeks of August but also during September at some communities, we prepare the units for new incoming tenants. Other than revenue generated by in-place leases for returning tenants, we do not generally recognize lease revenue during this period referred to as “Turn” as we have no leases in place. In addition, during Turn we incur significant expenses making our units ready for occupancy, which we recognize immediately. This lease Turn period results in seasonality in our operating results during the third quarter of each year.

Our use of debt financing reduces cash available for distribution and may expose us to the risk of default under our debt obligations.

Our charter and bylaws impose no limitation on the amount of debt we may incur. Our debt service obligations expose us to the risk of default and reduce (or eliminate) cash resources that are available to operate our business. On March 30, 2006, we amended and restated our revolving credit facility and the Operating Partnership entered into a $50,000 senior unsecured term loan. On June 8, 2007, we prepaid the entire balance outstanding on the unsecured term loan. The amended credit facility has substantially the same terms as the original facility, including $100,000 of availability and customary affirmative and negative covenants. The amount available to us and our ability to borrow from time to time under this facility is subject to certain conditions and the satisfaction of specified financial covenants, which include limiting distributions to our stockholders. If the income generated by our properties and other assets fails to cover our debt service, we would be forced to reduce or eliminate distributions to our stockholders and may experience losses. Our level of debt and the operating 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, and the lenders or mortgagees may foreclose on our properties that secure their loans and receive an assignment of rents and leases; and
	•		foreclosures could create taxable income without accompanying cash proceeds, a circumstance that could hinder our ability to meet the REIT distribution requirements.

We face significant competition from university-owned student housing and from other private student housing communities located within close proximity to universities.

Many students prefer on-campus housing to off-campus housing because of the closer physical proximity to campus and integration of on-campus facilities into the academic community. Universities can generally avoid real estate taxes

and borrow funds at lower interest rates, while we and other private-sector operators pay full real estate tax rates and have higher borrowing costs. Consequently, universities often can offer more convenient and/or less expensive student housing than we can, which can adversely affect our occupancy and rental rates.

We also compete with other national and regional owner-operators of off-campus student housing in a number of markets as well as with smaller local owner-operators. There are a number of purpose-built student housing properties that compete directly with us located near or in the same general vicinity of many of our student housing communities. Such competing student housing communities may be newer than our student housing communities, located closer to campus, charge less rent, possess more attractive amenities, or offer more services, shorter lease terms or more flexible leases. The construction of competing properties or decreases in the general levels of rents for housing in competing properties could adversely affect our rental income.

We believe that a number of other large national companies may be potential entrants in the student housing business. In some cases, these potential competitors possess substantially greater financial and marketing resources than we do. The entry of one or more of these companies could increase competition for student tenants and for the acquisition, development and management of other student housing communities.

We may not be able to recover our costs for our development consulting services.

We typically are awarded development consulting services business on the basis of a competitive award process, but definitive contracts are typically not executed until the formal approval of the transaction by the institution’s governing body at the completion of the process. In the intervening period, we may incur significant predevelopment and other costs in the expectation that the development consulting services contract will be executed. These costs could range up to $2,000 or more per project and typically include architects’ fees to design the property and contractors’ fees to price the construction. We typically seek to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the institution that requires the institution to provide a guarantee of our advances. However, we may not be successful in negotiating such an agreement. In addition, if an institution’s governing body does not ultimately approve our selection and the underlying terms of a pending development, we may not be able to recover these costs from the institution. In addition, when we are awarded development consulting business, we generally receive 50% of our fees at the time the project is financed, and the remainder is generally paid in monthly installments thereafter. As a result, the recognition and timing of revenues will, among other things differ from the timing of payments and be contingent upon the project owner’s successful structuring and closing of the project financing as well as the timing of construction.

We may not be able to recover internal development costs.

When developing student housing communities for our ownership on University land, definitive contracts are not executed until the formal approval of the transaction by the institution’s governing body at the completion of the process. In the intervening period, we may incur significant predevelopment and other costs in the expectation that a ground lease will be executed. These costs could range up to $1,000 or more and typically include architects’ fees to design the property and third party fees related to other predevelopment services. If an institution’s governing body does not ultimately approve the lease we will not be able to recover these predevelopment costs.

We may be unable to take advantage of certain disposition opportunities because of additional costs we have agreed to pay if we sell certain of our properties in taxable transactions for a period of five years.

On the Closing Date, we issued University Towers Partnership units for our interest in University Towers. So long as the contributing owners of such property hold at least 25% of the University Towers Partnership units that they received on the Closing Date, we have agreed to maintain certain minimum amounts of debt on the properties so as to avoid triggering gain to the contributing owners. If we fail to do this, we will owe to the contributing owners the amount of taxes that they incur. In each case, the amount of tax is computed assuming the highest federal and state rates. As a result, these agreements may preclude us from selling the restricted properties at the optimal time.

We rely on our relationships with universities, and changes in university personnel and/or policies could adversely affect our operating results.

In some cases, we rely on our relationships with universities for referrals of prospective tenants or for mailing lists of prospective tenants and their parents. The failure to maintain good relationships with personnel at these universities could therefore have a material adverse effect on us. If universities refuse to make their lists of prospective student-tenants and their parents available to us or increase the costs of these lists, the increased costs or failure to obtain such lists could also have a material adverse effect on us.

We may be adversely affected by a change in university admission policies. For example, if a university reduces the number of student admissions, the demand for our properties may be reduced and our occupancy rates may decline. In addition, universities may institute a policy that a certain class of students, such as freshmen, must live in a university-owned facility, which would also reduce the demand for our properties. While we may engage in marketing efforts to compensate for such policy changes, we may not be able to effect such marketing efforts prior to the commencement of the annual lease-up period or at all.

Our growth will be dependent upon our ability to acquire and/or develop, lease, integrate and manage additional student housing communities successfully.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to identify real estate investments, including joint ventures, that meet our investment criteria, that we will be successful in completing any acquisition we identify or that any acquisition we complete will produce a return on our investment.

Our future growth will be dependent upon our ability to successfully acquire new properties and enter into joint ventures on favorable terms, which may be adversely affected by the following significant risks:

	•		we may be unable to acquire a desired property at all or at a desired purchase price because of competition from other purchasers of student housing;
	•		many of our future acquisitions are likely to be dependent on external financing, and we may be unable to finance an acquisition on favorable terms or at all;
	•		we may be required 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 vacancy rates and lower than expected rental rates; and
	•		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 undisclosed environmental contamination, claims by tenants, vendors or other persons dealing with the former owners of the properties and claims for indemnification by members, directors, officers and others indemnified by the former owners of the properties.

As we acquire additional properties, we will be subject to risks associated with managing new properties, including lease-up and integration risks. Newly acquired properties may not perform as expected, and newly acquired properties may have characteristics or deficiencies unknown to us at the time of acquisition.

Risks related to the real estate industry

Our performance and the value of our real estate assets are subject to risks associated with real estate assets and with the real estate industry.

Our ability to make 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:

	•		local oversupply of student housing units, increased competition or reduction in demand for student housing;
	•		inability to collect rent from tenants;
	•		vacancies or our inability to lease beds on favorable terms;
	•		inability to finance property development and acquisitions on favorable terms;
	•		increased operating costs, including insurance premiums, utilities, and real estate taxes;
	•		costs of complying with changes in governmental regulations;
	•		the relative illiquidity of real estate investments;
	•		changing student demographics;
	•		decreases in student enrollment at particular colleges and universities;
	•		changes in university policies related to admissions;
	•		national, regional and local economic conditions; and
	•		rising interest rates.

We will depend heavily on the availability of equity and debt capital to fund our business.

In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we are required under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, which we refer to as the Code, to distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to distributions paid and excluding any net capital gain. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our net taxable income, including any net capital gains, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our shareholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under federal tax laws. Because of these distribution requirements, REITs are largely unable to fund capital expenditures, such as acquisitions, renovations, development and property upgrades from operating cash flow. Consequently, we will be largely dependent on the public equity and debt capital markets and private lenders to provide capital to fund our growth and other capital expenditures. We may not be able to obtain this financing on favorable terms or at all. Our access to equity and debt 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 market’s perception of our growth potential;
	•		our cash flow and cash distributions; and
	•		the market price per share of our common stock.

If we cannot obtain capital from third-party sources, we may not be able to acquire properties when strategic opportunities exist, satisfy our debt service obligations or make the cash distributions to our stockholders, including those necessary to maintain our qualification as a REIT.

Financing our future growth plan or refinancing existing debt maturities could be adversely impacted by negative capital market conditions.

Recently, domestic financial markets have experienced unusual volatility and uncertainty. While this condition has occurred most visibly within the “subprime” mortgage lending sector of the credit market, liquidity has tightened in overall domestic financial markets, including the investment grade debt and equity capital markets. Consequently, there is greater uncertainty regarding our ability to access the credit market in order to attract financing on reasonable terms, if at all. Our ability to finance our pending or new acquisitions as well as our ability to refinance debt maturities could be adversely affected by our inability to secure permanent financing on reasonable terms, if at all.

We have limited time to perform due diligence on many of our acquired properties, which could subject us to significant unexpected liabilities and under-performance of the acquired properties.

When we enter into an agreement to acquire a property, we often have limited time to complete our due diligence prior to

acquiring the property. Because our internal resources are limited, we may rely on third parties to conduct a portion of our due diligence. To the extent these third parties or we underestimate or fail to identify risks and liabilities associated with the properties we acquire, we may incur unexpected liabilities, or the property may fail to perform in accordance with our projections. If, during the due diligence phase, we do not accurately assess the value of and liabilities associated with a particular property, we may pay a purchase price that exceeds the current fair value of the assets. As a result, material goodwill and other intangible assets would be recorded, which could result in significant charges to earnings in future periods. These charges, in addition to the financial impact of significant liabilities that we may assume, could seriously harm our financial and operating results, as well as our ability to pay dividends.

Certain losses may not be covered by insurance.

We carry insurance covering comprehensive liability, fire, earthquake, terrorism, business interruption, vandalism and malicious mischief, extended coverage perils, physical loss perils, commercial general liability, personal injury, workers’ compensation, business, automobile, errors and omissions, employee dishonesty, employment practices liability and rental loss with respect to all of the properties in our portfolio and the operation of our Management Company and Development Company. We also carry insurance covering flood (when the property is located in whole or in material part in a designated flood plain area) on some of our properties. 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 riots or wars, employment discrimination losses, punitive damage awards, or acts of God) that may be either uninsurable or not economically insurable. Some of our policies are subject to large deductibles or co-payments 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 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.

Future terrorist attacks in the United States could harm the demand for and the value of our student housing communities.

Future terrorist attacks in the United States, such as the attacks that occurred in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, and other acts of terrorism or war, or threats of the same, could harm the demand for and the value of our properties. A decrease in demand in our markets would make it difficult for us to renew or re-lease our properties at rates equal to or above historical rates.

Terrorist attacks also could directly affect the value of our properties through damage, destruction, loss or increased security costs, and the availability or cost of insurance for such acts. If we receive casualty proceeds, we may not be able to reinvest such proceeds profitably or at all, and we may be forced to recognize taxable gain on the affected property.

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, or 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, or PRPs. 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 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 property’s value and the aggregate assets of the liable party. The presence of contamination or the failure to remediate contamination at our properties also 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. We do not carry environmental insurance on any of the properties in our portfolio.

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, storage tanks, storm water and wastewater discharges, lead-based paint, wetlands and hazardous wastes. Failure to comply with these laws could result in fines and penalties and/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 and/or liable to third parties for those conditions.

We could be exposed to liability and remedial costs related to environmental matters.

Certain properties in our portfolio may contain, or may have contained, 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 and operators for failure to comply with these requirements. Also, certain properties may 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. Certain properties in our portfolio contain, or may have contained, elevated radon levels. Third parties may be permitted by law to seek recovery from owners or operators for property damage and/or 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 and mildew. 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, or if water intrusion into our buildings otherwise occurs, microbial matter or other contamination can develop. When excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. If this were to occur, we could incur significant remedial costs and we may also be subject to material private damage claims and awards. Concern about indoor exposure to mold has been increasing, as exposure to mold may cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. If we become subject to claims in this regard, it could materially and adversely affect us and our future insurability for such matters.

Independent environmental consultants conduct Phase I environmental site assessments on all of our acquisitions. 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 or the possible presence of asbestos, lead-based paint, radon, wetlands or mold. The results of these assessments are addressed and could result in either a cancellation of the purchase, the requirement of the seller to remediate issues, or additional costs on our part to remediate the issue.

None of the previous site assessments revealed any past or present environmental liability that we believe would be material to us. However, the 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; and future laws, ordinances or regulations may impose material additional environmental liability.

We cannot assure you that costs of future environmental compliance will not affect our ability to make distributions or that such costs or other remedial measures will not be material to us.

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 ADA requirements. Noncompliance with the ADA or FHAA could result in the imposition of fines or an award for 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.

In June 2001, the United States Department of Justice, or DOJ, notified JPI of an on-going investigation regarding possible violations of the ADA and the FHAA at various residential properties developed by JPI, mostly multi-family apartment communities. Of the 14 student housing communities we acquired from JPI on the Closing Date, one property is included in those reviewed by the DOJ to date. The DOJ has reviewed the property plans for this property but has not issued a report regarding its review. In October 2002, the DOJ indicated that the investigations were being delayed for an undetermined period of time. This investigation has not been resolved and, at this point, no conclusion can be reached regarding what will be required to conclude it or whether it will result in a dispute or legal proceedings with the DOJ. Noncompliance with the ADA and the FHAA could result in the imposition of injunctive relief, fines, awards of damages to private litigants or additional capital expenditures to remedy such noncompliance. We are unable to predict the outcome of the DOJ’s investigation related to the JPI portfolio.

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 be liable for private action money damages. Furthermore, existing requirements could change and require us to make significant unanticipated expenditures that would materially and adversely affect us.

Our potential participation in joint ventures presents additional risks.

We may 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 such event, we will not have sole decision-making authority 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 partners or co-venturers may become bankrupt or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. 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 our reaching impasses with our partners or co-venturers on key decisions, such as a sale, because neither we nor the partner or co-venturer would have full control over the partnership or joint venture. Disputes between us and partners or co-venturers may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent our management team from focusing its time and effort exclusively on our business. In addition, we may in some circumstances be liable for the actions of our third-party partners or co-venturers.

Illiquidity of real estate investments could significantly impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our properties.

Because real estate investments are relatively illiquid, our ability to promptly sell one or more properties in our portfolio in response to changing economic, financial and investment conditions is limited. The real estate market is affected by many factors, such as general economic conditions, availability of financing, interest rates and other factors, including supply and demand, that are beyond our control. We cannot predict whether we will be able to sell any property for the price or

on the terms set by us or whether any price or other terms offered by a prospective purchaser would be acceptable to us. We also cannot predict the length of time needed to find a willing purchaser and to close the sale of a property.

We may be required to expend funds to correct defects or to make improvements before a property can be sold. We cannot ensure that we will have funds available to correct those defects or to make those improvements. In acquiring a property, we may agree to transfer restrictions that materially restrict us from selling that property for a period of time or impose other restrictions, such as a limitation on the amount of debt that can be placed or repaid on that property. These transfer restrictions would impede our ability to sell a property even if we deem it necessary or appropriate.

Risks related to our organization and structure

To maintain our REIT status, we may be forced to limit the activities of our Management Company.

To maintain our status 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 Management Company. Some of our activities, such as our third-party management, development consulting and food services, must be conducted through our Management Company and Development Company for us to maintain our REIT qualification. In addition, certain non-customary services such as cleaning, transportation, security and, in some cases, parking, 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 Management Company, 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. Because the 20% threshold is based on value, it is possible that the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, could successfully contend that the value of our Management Company exceeds the 20% threshold even if our Management Company accounts for less than 20% of our consolidated revenues, income or cash flow, in which case our status as a REIT could be jeopardized.

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, by number of shares or by voting power, whichever is more restrictive) of the outstanding shares of our common stock or more than 9.8% (by value, by number of shares or by voting power, whichever is more restrictive) of all our outstanding shares, including both common and preferred stock. We refer to this restriction as the “ownership limit.” Generally, if a beneficial owner of our shares exceeds the ownership limit, such owner will be effectively divested of all ownership rights with respect to shares exceeding the limit and may suffer a loss on his or her investment.

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 certain shares to the ramifications of exceeding the ownership limit. Our charter, however, permits 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 otherwise result in 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, or could delay, defer or prevent a change in control or the removal of existing management. These provisions also may delay or prevent our 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; and
	•		advance notice requirements for stockholder nomination of directors and for other proposals to be presented at stockholder meetings.

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 our stockholders. Our bylaws exempt us from some of those laws, such as the 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 distributions that we make to our stockholders. Our board of directors may amend or revise the foregoing policies, our distribution payment amounts and other policies from time to time without a stockholder vote. Accordingly, our stockholders may not have control over changes in our policies.

The ability of our board of directors to revoke our REIT election without stockholder approval may cause adverse consequences to our stockholders.

Our charter provides that our board of directors may revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if it determines that it is no longer in our best interests to continue to qualify as a REIT. If we cease to qualify as a REIT, we would become subject to federal income tax on our taxable income and would no longer be required to distribute most of our taxable income to our stockholders, which may have adverse consequences on the total return to our stockholders.

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 believes to be in our best interests and with the care that an ordinarily 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 that 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, our stockholders and we 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 depend upon the services of our key personnel, particularly Paul O. Bower, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, Randall H. Brown, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Thomas Trubiana, our Chief Investment Officer, and Craig L. Cardwell, our President of Allen & O’Hara Education Services, Inc. Messrs. Bower, Trubiana and Cardwell each have been in the student housing business for over 30 years, and each of them has developed a network of contacts and a reputation that attracts business and investment opportunities and assists us in negotiations with universities, lenders and industry personnel. In addition, Mr. Brown possesses detailed knowledge of and experience with our financial and ancillary support operations that are critical to our operations and financial reporting obligations as a public company. We will continue to need to attract and retain qualified additional senior executive officers as we grow our business. The loss of the services of any of our senior executive officers, or our inability to recruit and retain qualified personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results.

Federal income tax risks

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. We have not requested and do not plan to request a ruling from the IRS that we qualify as a REIT. If we lose our REIT status, we will face serious tax consequences that could substantially reduce the funds available for distribution to our stockholders for each of the years involved because:

	•		we would not be allowed a deduction for distributions 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
	•		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 make distributions to stockholders, and all distributions 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, distributions 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 sales of securities. Also, we must make distributions to stockholders aggregating annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding any net capital gains. In addition, new legislation, 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.

We may be subject to federal and state income taxes that would harm our financial condition.

Even if we qualify and maintain our status as a REIT, we may become subject to federal income taxes and related state taxes. For example, if we have net income from a sale of dealer property or inventory, or, if our Management Company enters into agreements with us or our tenants on a basis that is determined to be other than an arm’s length basis, that income will be subject to a 100% penalty tax. If we believe that a sale of a property might be treated as a prohibited transaction, we will attempt to structure a sale through a taxable REIT subsidiary, in which case the gain from the sale would be subject to corporate income tax but not the 100% prohibited transaction tax. We cannot assure you, however, that the IRS would not assert successfully that sales of properties that we make directly, rather than through a taxable REIT subsidiary, were sales of “dealer” property or inventory, in which case the 100% penalty tax will apply. In addition, we may not be able to make sufficient distributions to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% excise tax on undistributed income. We may also be subject to state and local taxes on our income or property, either directly or at the level of our Operating Partnership or the University Towers Partnership or at a level of the other entities through which we indirectly own our properties that would aversely affect our operating results.

An investment in our common stock has various tax risks, including the treatment of distributions in excess of earnings and the inability to apply “passive losses” against distributions.

Distributions in excess of current and accumulated earnings and profits, to the extent that they exceed the adjusted basis of an investor’s common stock, will be treated as long-term capital gain (or short-term capital gain if the shares have been held for less than one year). Any gain or loss realized upon a taxable disposition of shares by a stockholder who is not a dealer in securities will be treated as a long-term capital gain or loss if the shares have been held for more than one year, and otherwise will be treated as short-term capital gain or loss. Distributions that we properly designate as capital gain distributions will be treated as taxable to stockholders as gains (to the extent that they do not exceed our actual net capital gain for the taxable year) from the sale or disposition of a capital asset held for greater than one year. Distributions we make and gain arising from the sale or exchange by a stockholder of shares of our stock will not be treated as passive income, meaning stockholders generally will not be able to apply any “passive losses” against such income or gain.

Future distributions may include a significant portion as a return of capital.

Our distributions may exceed the amount of our income as a REIT. If so, the excess distributions will be treated as a return of capital to the extent of the stockholder’s basis in our stock, and the stockholder’s basis in our stock will be reduced by such amount. To the extent distributions exceed a stockholder’s basis in our stock, the stockholder will recognize capital gain, assuming the stock is held as a capital asset.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

General

As of December 31, 2007, our properties consisted of 39 communities located in 17 states containing 24,463 beds in 7,466 apartment units located near 32 universities. On January 6, 2006, we completed the acquisition of the 13 collegiate student housing communities with a combined total of 5,894 beds from Place Properties, L.P. of Atlanta, Georgia. Under terms of the transaction, Place Properties sold its owned portfolio to the Operating Partnership and then leased back the properties and operated them with the existing management teams under a renewable, initial five-year lease agreement with the Trust. On February 1, 2008, the lease was terminated early and the Trust began operating these properties.

Thirty-eight of our 39 properties are modern apartment communities, with clusters of low-rise buildings that consist of student housing units with private bedrooms and one or more bathrooms centered around a common area consisting of a fully furnished living room, dining room and fully-equipped kitchen. University Towers is a high-rise residence hall that has a cafeteria on the premises and no individual kitchens in the units. We provide food services through our Management Company to residents of University Towers. Our student housing communities typically contain a swimming pool, recreational facilities and common areas, and each bedroom has individualized locks, high-speed Internet access and telephone and cable television connections.

Our owned student housing communities typically have the following characteristics:

	•		located in close proximity to university campuses (within two miles or less);
	•		average age of approximately 9 years;
	•		designed specifically for students with modern unit plans and amenities; and
	•		supported by our long-standing Community Assistant program and other student-oriented activities and services that enhance the college experience.

Properties

The following tables provide certain summary information about our owned properties as of December 31, 2007 and 2006:

																				Year Ended
																				December 31, 2007
																				Average				Monthly				Revenue per
				Year				Acquisition				# of				# of				Occupancy				Total				Available
Name		Primary University Served		Built				Date				Beds				Units				Rate(1)				Revenue				Bed(2)
																				(In thousands)
Owned and Operated
NorthPointe		University of Arizona			1999			Jan ’05					912				300				93.2	%		$	326			$	358
The Reserve at Athens		University of Georgia			1999			Jan ’05					612				200				99.6				237				387
The Reserve at Clemson		Clemson University			1999			Jan ’05					590				177				92.3				185				313
Players Club		Florida State University			1994			Jan ’05					336				84				97.7				136				405
The Gables		Western Kentucky University			1996			Jan ’05					288				72				97.9				88				305
College Station		Augusta State University			1989			Jan ’05					203				61				68.7				40				195
University Towers		North Carolina State University			1989			Jan ’05					953				251				78.0				444	(4)			466	(4)
The Pointe at South Florida		University of South Florida			1999			Jan ’05					1,002				336				92.3				389				388
Commons at Knoxville		University of Tennessee			1999			Jan ’05					708				211				98.0				307				433
The Commons		Florida State University			1997			Jan ’05					732				252				93.9				248				339
The Reserve on Perkins		Oklahoma State University			1999			Jan ’05					732				234				94.4				229				313
The Reserve at Star Pass		University of Arizona			2001			Jan ’05					1,020				336				94.2				373				366
The Pointe at Western		Western Michigan University			2000			Jan ’05					876				324				95.5				335				382
College Station at W. Lafayette		Purdue University			2000			Jan ’05					960				336				95.2				331				345
Commons on Kinnear		The Ohio State University			2000			Jan ’05					502				166				96.0				230				459
The Pointe		Pennsylvania State University			1999			Jan ’05					984				294				98.8				380				386
The Reserve at Columbia		University of Missouri			2000			Jan ’05					676				260				92.7				232				343
The Reserve on Frankford		Texas Tech University			1997			Jan ’05					737				243				88.5				232				315

																				Year Ended
																				December 31, 2007
																				Average				Monthly				Revenue per
				Year				Acquisition				# of				# of				Occupancy				Total				Available
Name		Primary University Served		Built				Date				Beds				Units				Rate(1)				Revenue				Bed(2)
																				(In thousands)
The Lofts		University of Central Florida			2002			Jan ’05					730				254				98.2				426				584
The Reserve on West 31st		University of Kansas			1998			Jan ’05					720				192				92.6				234				325
Campus Creek		University of Mississippi			2004			Feb ’05					636				192				97.1				265				417
Pointe West		University of South Carolina			2003			Mar ’05					480				144				99.8				207				432
Campus Lodge		University of Florida			2001			Jun ’05					1,116				360				96.4				593				531
College Grove		Middle Tennessee State University			1998			Apr ’05					864				240				97.8				285				329
The Reserve on South College		Auburn University			1999			Jul ’05					576				180				96.2				203				352
Players Club		Georgia Southern University			1993			Jun ’06					624				214				78.8				182				292
Sub-total owned and operated					1998	(3)							18,569				5,913				93.6	(3)		$	7,137			$	384	(3)
Owned and Leased Properties(5)
Troy Place		Troy State University			2000			Jan ’06					408				108				—				—				—
Jacksonville Place		Jacksonville State University			2000			Jan ’06					504				132				—				—				—
Macon Place		Macon State College			1999			Jan ’06					336				84				—				—				—
Clayton Place		Clayton College & State University			1999			Jan ’06					854				221				—				—				—
River Place		State University of West Georgia			2000			Jan ’06					504				132				—				—				—
Murray Place		Murray State University			2000			Jan ’06					408				108				—				—				—
Cape Place		Southeast Missouri State University			2000			Jan ’06					360				96				—				—				—
Clemson Place		Clemson University			1998			Jan ’06					288				96				—				—				—
Martin Place		University of Tennessee at Martin			2000			Jan ’06					384				96				—				—				—
Berkeley Place		Clemson University			1999			Jan ’06					480				132				—				—				—
Carrollton Place		State University of West Georgia			1998			Jan ’06					336				84				—				—				—
Statesboro Place		Georgia Southern University			1999			Jan ’06					528				132				—				—				—
Western Place		Western Kentucky University			2000			Jan ’06					504				132				—				—				—
Sub-total owned and leased properties					1999	(3)							5,894				1,553				—				—				—
Total owned properties					1999	(3)							24,463				7,466				—				—				—

																				Year Ended
																				December 31, 2006
																				Average				Monthly				Revenue per
				Year				Acquisition				# of				# of				Occupancy				Total				Available
Name		Primary University Served		Built				Date				Beds				Units				Rate(1)				Revenue				Bed(2)
																				(In thousands)
Owned and Operated
NorthPointe		University of Arizona			1999			Jan ’05					912				300				89.1	%		$	294			$	323
The Reserve at Athens		University of Georgia			1999			Jan ’05					612				200				99.4				228				373
The Reserve at Clemson		Clemson University			1999			Jan ’05					590				177				92.7				190				322
Players Club		Florida State University			1994			Jan ’05					336				84				94.4				128				380
The Gables		Western Kentucky University			1996			Jan ’05					288				72				96.2				86				298
College Station		Augusta State University			1989			Jan ’05					203				61				63.1				35				174
University Towers		North Carolina State University			1989			Jan ’05					953				251				82.9				432	(4)			453	(4)
The Pointe at South Florida		University of South Florida			1999			Jan ’05					1,002				336				97.0				397				397
Commons at Knoxville		University of Tennessee			1999			Jan ’05					708				211				97.3				291				411
The Commons		Florida State University			1997			Jan ’05					732				252				93.4				252				345
The Reserve on Perkins		Oklahoma State University			1999			Jan ’05					732				234				91.1				210				287

																				Year Ended
																				December 31, 2006
																				Average				Monthly				Revenue per
				Year				Acquisition				# of				# of				Occupancy				Total				Available
Name		Primary University Served		Built				Date				Beds				Units				Rate(1)				Revenue				Bed(2)
																								(In thousands)
The Reserve at Star Pass		University of Arizona			2001			Jan ’05					1,020				336				93.0				333				327
The Pointe at Western		Western Michigan University			2000			Jan ’05					876				324				96.6				331				378
College Station at W. Lafayette		Purdue University			2000			Jan ’05					960				336				91.0				315				328
Commons on Kinnear		The Ohio State University			2000			Jan ’05					502				166				95.6				231				460
The Pointe		Pennsylvania State University			1999			Jan ’05					984				294				96.7				357				363
The Reserve at Columbia		University of Missouri			2000			Jan ’05					676				260				90.4				243				359
The Reserve on Frankford		Texas Tech University			1997			Jan ’05					737				243				90.2				246				334
The Village on Tharpe(6)		Florida State University			1995			Jan ’05					1,554				486				95.4				520				334
The Lofts		University of Central Florida			2002			Jan ’05					730				254				97.5				407				558
The Reserve on West 31st		University of Kansas			1998			Jan ’05					720				192				92.6				216				299
Campus Creek		University of Mississippi			2004			Feb ’05					636				192				92.9				251				394
Pointe West		University of South Carolina			2003			Mar ’05					480				144				99.2				180				375
Campus Lodge		University of Florida			2001			Jun ’05					1,116				360				95.8				567				508
College Grove		Middle Tennessee State University			1998			Apr ’05					864				240				96.8				260				301
The Reserve on South College		Auburn University			1999			Jul ’05					576				180				95.0				184				319
Players Club		Georgia Southern University			1993			Jun ’06					624				214				79.6				102				281
Sub-total owned and operated					1998	(3)							20,123				6,399				93.3	(3)		$	7,286			$	367	(3)
Owned and Leased Properties(5)
Troy Place		Troy State University			2000			Jan ’06					408				108				—				—				—
Jacksonville Place		Jacksonville State University			2000			Jan ’06					504				132				—				—				—
Macon Place		Macon State College			1999			Jan ’06					336				84				—				—				—
Clayton Place		Clayton College & State University			1999			Jan ’06					854				221				—				—				—
River Place		State University of West Georgia			2000			Jan ’06					504				132				—				—				—
Murray Place		Murray State University			2000			Jan ’06					408				108				—				—				—
Cape Place		Southeast Missouri State University			2000			Jan ’06					360				96				—				—				—
Clemson Place		Clemson University			1998			Jan ’06					288				96				—				—				—
Martin Place		University of Tennesse at Martin			2000			Jan ’06					384				96				—				—				—
Berkeley Place		Clemson University			1999			Jan ’06					480				132				—				—				—
Carrollton Place		State University of West Georgia			1998			Jan ’06					336				84				—				—				—
Statesboro Place		Georgia Southern University			1999			Jan ’06					528				132				—				—				—
Western Place		Western Kentucky University			2000			Jan ’06					504				132				—				—				—
Sub-total owned and leased properties					1999	(3)							5,894				1,553				—				—				—
Total owned properties					1999	(3)							26,017				7,952				—				—				—

Mortgage Indebtedness

The following table contains summary information concerning the mortgage debt encumbering our properties as of December 31, 2007:

		Outstanding				Contractual
		December 31,				Fixed				Maturity
Property		2007				Interest Rate				Date				Amortization
University Towers		$	23,099				6.77	%			3/1/2008			30 Year
The Reserve at Clemson			12,000				5.55	%			3/1/2012			30 Year
The Gables			4,364				5.50	%			11/1/2013			30 Year
NorthPointe			18,800				5.55	%			3/1/2012			30 Year
The Pointe at S. Florida			23,467				5.48	%			7/7/2009			30 Year
The Pointe at Western			21,209				5.48	%			7/7/2009			30 Year
The Lofts			27,000				5.59	%			5/1/2014			30 Year
The Reserve on Perkins/The Commons at Knoxville			31,420				5.48	%			7/7/2009			30 Year
The Pointe at Penn State/The Reserve at Star Pass			49,821				5.48	%			7/7/2009			30 Year
Campus Lodge			36,362				6.97	%			5/1/2012			30 Year
Pointe West			10,815				4.92	%			8/1/2014			30 Year
College Station at W. Lafayette			14,531				5.48	%			7/7/2009			30 Year
The Commons on Kinnear			14,434				5.48	%			7/7/2009			30 Year
The Reserve at Frankford			14,237				5.48	%			7/7/2009			30 Year
The Reserve at Columbia			19,048				5.48	%			7/7/2009			30 Year
Troy Place			9,440				6.44	%			12/9/2009			30 Year
Jacksonville Place			11,120				6.44	%			12/9/2009			30 Year
Macon Place			7,440				6.44	%			12/9/2009			30 Year
Clayton Place			24,540				6.44	%			12/9/2009			30 Year
River Place			13,680				6.44	%			12/9/2009			30 Year
Murray Place			6,800				6.44	%			12/9/2009			30 Year
Cape Place			8,520				6.44	%			12/9/2009			30 Year
Clemson Place			8,160				6.44	%			12/9/2009			30 Year
Martin Place			8,960				6.44	%			12/9/2009			30 Year
Total debt /weighted average rate			419,267				5.90	%
Unamortized premium			1,673
Total mortgage loans net of unamortized premium			420,940
Less current portion of long-term debt			(26,481	)
Total long-term debt, net of current portion		$	394,459

The weighted average interest rate of the mortgage indebtedness was 5.90% and 5.85% at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Each of these mortgages is a non-recourse obligation subject to customary exceptions and has 30-year amortization. The loans generally do not allow prepayment prior to maturity. However, prepayment is allowed in certain cases subject to prepayment penalties.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

In the normal course of business, we are subject to claims, lawsuits and legal proceedings. While it is not possible to ascertain the ultimate outcome of such matters, in management’s opinion, such outcomes are not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

None.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information

Our common stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “EDR” on January 26, 2005. The initial public offering price of our common stock on such date was $16.00 per share. There were approximately 959 holders of record of the 28,506,966 shares outstanding on February 28, 2008. On the same day, our common stock closed at $12.96. The following table provides information on the high and low prices for our common stock on the NYSE and the dividends declared for 2006 and 2007:

										Distributions
		High				Low				Declared
Fiscal 2006
Quarter 1		$	15.83			$	12.81			$	0.30
Quarter 2			16.65				14.02				0.30
Quarter 3			16.85				13.60				0.30
Quarter 4			16.15				14.41				0.21
Fiscal 2007
Quarter 1		$	15.48			$	13.99			$	0.21
Quarter 2			14.99				13.69				0.21
Quarter 3			14.39				11.83				0.21
Quarter 4			14.10				10.75				0.21

Direct stock purchase and dividend reinvestment plan

On July 31, 2006, we implemented the direct stock purchase and dividend reinvestment plan which offers the following:

	•		automatic reinvestment of some or all of the cash distributions paid on common stock, shares of other classes of stock that we might issue in the future and units of limited partnership interest;
	•		an opportunity to make an initial purchase of our common stock and to acquire additional shares over time; and
	•		safekeeping of shares and accounting for distributions received and reinvested at no cost.

Shares of common stock purchased under the plan will be either issued by EDR or acquired directly from third parties in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions. The purchase price per share of common stock acquired on any particular investment date will not be less than 95% of the average high and low sales price per share of the common stock on the NYSE on that particular day. We will determine the source of shares available through the plan based on market conditions, relative transaction costs and our need for additional capital. To the extent the plan acquires shares of common stock directly from EDR, we will receive additional capital for general corporate purposes.

COMPARISON OF 35 MONTH CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN ^*
Among Education Realty Trust, The S & P 500 Index
And The MSCI US REIT Index

*$100 invested on 1/26/05 in stock or index, including reinvestment of dividends.

		Period Ending
Index		01/26/05				06/30/05				12/31/05				06/30/06				12/31/06				06/30/07				12/31/07
Education Realty Trust, Inc.			100.00				112.57				82.17				110.59				101.28				98.90				81.68
S&P 500			100.00				102.31				108.21				111.14				125.30				134.02				132.18
MSCI US REIT			100.00				115.39				121.67				138.07				165.37				154.71				137.57

We cannot assure you that your share performance will continue into the future with the same or similar trends depicted in the graph above. We will not make or endorse any predictions as to future share performance.

The performance comparisons noted in the graph shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this Annual Report on Form 10-K into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate this graph by reference, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such acts.

The following table provides information with respect to compensation plans under which our equity securities are authorized for issuance as of December 31, 2007.

						Number of Securities
		Number of Securities to		Weighted Average		Remaining Available for
		be Issued upon Exercise		Exercise Price of		Future Issuance under
		of Outstanding Options,		Outstanding Options		Equity Compensation
		Warrants and Rights(1)		Warrants and Rights(1)		Plans
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders		N/A		N/A			760,000
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders		N/A		N/A			N/A
Total		N/A		N/A			760,000

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

For the year ended December 31, 2007, we issued 17,500 profits interest units to employees. The issuance of these units was made in reliance upon exemptions from registration provided by Section 4(2) under the Securities Act and Rule 506 of Regulation D thereunder.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

We have not presented historical information for EDR prior to the completion of the IPO because we did not have material corporate operating activity during the period from our formation until the closing of our IPO.

The following table sets forth selected financial and operating data on a consolidated historical basis for EDR and on a combined historical basis for the EDR Predecessor. For the periods presented prior to our IPO, the historical combined financial information for the EDR Predecessor includes:

	•		the student housing operations of Education Properties Trust, LLC (including the properties referred to as Northpointe, The Reserve at Athens, The Reserve at Clemson and Players Club)
	•		the student housing operations of the properties referred to as the Gables, College Station and University Towers, and
	•		the third party management and development consulting service operations and real estate operations of Allen & O’Hara Education Services, LLC

The results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2005 represent the combined historical operations of the EDR Predecessor for the period January 1, 2005 through January 30, 2005 as well as the consolidated historical operations of EDR for the year ended December 31, 2005.

The following information presented below does not provide all of the information contained in our financial statements, including related notes. You should read the information below in conjunction with the historical consolidated and combined financial statements and related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS DATA

		Education Realty												EDR
		Trust, Inc.												Predecessor
		Year Ended December 31,
		2007				2006				2005				2004				2003
		(In thousands, except share and per share data)
Revenues:
Student housing leasing revenue		$	85,651			$	81,202			$	70,010			$	17,896			$	17,095
Student housing food service revenue			2,359				3,634				3,491				3,137				2,879
Other leasing revenue			13,811				14,012				—				—				—
Third-party development consulting services			5,411				3,773				1,759				392				691
Third-party management revenue			3,391				2,796				1,968				1,326				1,026
Operating expense reimbursements			9,330				7,638				6,694				5,223				4,438
Total revenues			119,953				113,055				83,922				27,974				26,129
Operating expenses:
Student housing leasing operations			41,215				39,503				34,758				7,645				7,408
Student housing food service operations			2,236				3,318				3,275				2,899				2,645
Reimbursable operating expenses			9,330				7,638				6,694				5,223				4,438
General and administrative			14,561				12,331				12,549				3,545				3,425
Depreciation and amortization			32,223				34,035				26,845				3,120				3,061
Total operating expenses			99,565				96,825				84,121				22,432				20,977
Operating income (loss)			20,388				16,230				(199	)			5,542				5,152
Nonoperating expenses			27,675				29,933				17,266				5,786				5,771
Loss before equity in earnings of unconsolidated entities			(7,287	)			(13,703	)			(17,465	)			(244	)			(619	)
Equity in earnings (losses) of unconsolidated entities			(277	)			740				880				1,002				629
Income (loss) before income taxes and minority interest			(7,564	)			(12,963	)			(16,585	)			758				10
Taxes			258				659				497				—				—
Income (loss) before minority interest			(7,822	)			(13,622	)			(17,082	)			758				10
Minority interest			(39	)			(404	)			(1,073	)			—				—
Income (loss) from continuing operations			(7,783	)			(13,218	)			(16,009	)			758				10
Discontinued operations:
Income from operations of discontinued operations			788				973				475				—				—
Gain on sale of student housing property			1,579				—				—				—				—
Income from discontinued operations			2,367				973				475				—				—
Net income (loss)		$	(5,416	)		$	(12,245	)		$	(15,534	)		$	758			$	10