Post Properties 8-K Financial Statements and Exhibits

Exhibit 99.1

RISK FACTORS

The following risk factors apply to Post Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) and Post Apartment Homes, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”). All indebtedness described in the risk factors has been incurred by the Operating Partnership.

Unfavorable changes in apartment markets and economic conditions could adversely affect occupancy levels and rental rates.

Market and economic conditions in the various metropolitan areas of the United States where the Company operates, particularly Atlanta, Georgia, Dallas, Texas, Tampa, Florida and the greater Washington, D.C. area where a substantial majority of the Company’s apartment communities are located, may significantly affect occupancy levels and rental rates and therefore profitability. Factors that may adversely affect these conditions include the following:

• the economic climate, which may be adversely impacted by a reduction in jobs, industry slowdowns and other factors;

• local conditions, such as oversupply of, or reduced demand for, apartment homes;

• continued or worsened weak economic and market conditions that simultaneously affect one or more of the Company’s geographic markets;

• declines in household formation;

• favorable residential mortgage rates;

• rent control or stabilization laws, or other laws regulating rental housing, which could prevent the Company from raising rents to offset increases in operating costs; and

• competition from other available apartments and other housing alternatives and changes in market rental rates.

Any of these factors could adversely affect the Company’s ability to achieve desired operating results from its communities.

Development and construction risks could impact the Company’s profitability.

The Company intends to continue to develop and construct apartment communities and may convert existing apartment communities into condominiums or develop for-sale housing. Development activities may be conducted through wholly-owned affiliated companies or through joint ventures with unaffiliated parties. The Company’s development and construction activities may be exposed to the following risks:

• the Company may be unable to obtain, or face delays in obtaining, necessary zoning, land-use, building, occupancy, and other required governmental permits and authorizations, which could result in increased development costs;

• the Company may incur construction costs for a property that exceed original estimates due to increased materials, labor or other costs, which could make completion of the property uneconomical, and the Company may not be able to increase rents to compensate for the increase in construction costs;

• the Company may abandon development opportunities that it has already begun to explore, and it may fail to recover expenses already incurred in connection with exploring those opportunities;

• the Company has been and may continue to be unable to complete construction and lease-up of a community on schedule and meet financial goals for development projects;

• because occupancy rates and rents at a newly developed community may fluctuate depending on a number of factors, including market and economic conditions, the Company may be unable to meet its profitability goals for that community; and

• land costs and construction costs have been increasing in the Company’s existing markets, and may continue to increase in the future and, in some cases, the costs of upgrading acquired communities have, and may continue to, exceed original estimates and the Company may be unable to charge rents that would compensate for these increases in costs.

Possible difficulty of selling apartment communities could limit the Company’s operational and financial flexibility.

Purchasers may not be willing to pay acceptable prices for apartment communities that the Company wishes to sell. A weak market may limit the Company’s ability to change its portfolio promptly in response to changing economic conditions. Also, if the Company is unable to sell apartment communities or if it can only sell apartment communities at prices lower than are generally acceptable, then the Company may have to take on additional leverage in order to provide adequate capital to execute its development and construction and acquisitions strategy. Furthermore, a portion of the proceeds from the Company’s overall property sales in the future may be held in escrow accounts in order for some sales to qualify as like-kind exchanges under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code so that any related capital gain can be deferred for federal income tax purposes. As a result, the Company may not have immediate access to all of the cash flow generated from property sales.

Changing interest rates could increase interest costs and could affect the market price of the Company’s securities.

The Company has incurred, and expects to continue to incur, debt bearing interest at rates that vary with market interest rates. Therefore, if interest rates increase, the Company’s interest costs will rise to the extent its variable rate debt is not hedged effectively. Further, while the Company’s stated goal is to limit variable rate debt to not more than 20% to 25% of total indebtedness, but management may adjust these levels over time. In addition, an increase in market interest rates may lead purchasers of the Company’s securities to demand a higher annual yield, which could adversely affect the market price of the Company’s common and preferred stock and debt securities.

Failure to generate sufficient cash flows could affect the Company’s debt financing and create refinancing risk.

The Company is subject to the risks normally associated with debt financing, including the risk that its cash flow will be insufficient to make required payments of principal and interest. Although the Company may be able to use cash flow to make future principal payments, it cannot assure investors that sufficient cash flow will be available to make all required principal payments and still satisfy the distribution requirements that the Company must satisfy in order to maintain its status as a real estate investment trust or “REIT” for federal income tax purposes. The following factors, among others, may affect the cash flows generated by the Company’s apartment communities:

• the national and local economies;

• local real estate market conditions, such as an oversupply of apartment homes;

• the perceptions by prospective residents of the safety, convenience and attractiveness of the Company’s communities and the neighborhoods in which they are located;

• the Company’s ability to provide adequate management, maintenance and insurance; and

• rental expenses, including real estate taxes and utilities.

Expenses associated with the Company’s investment in a community, such as debt service, real estate taxes, insurance and maintenance costs, are generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in cash flows from operations from that community. If a community is mortgaged to secure payment of debt and the Company is unable to make the mortgage payments, the Company could sustain a loss as a result of foreclosure on the community or the exercise of other remedies by the mortgagee. The Company is likely to need to refinance at least a portion of its outstanding debt as it matures. There is a risk that the Company may not be able to refinance existing debt or that the terms of any refinancing will not be as favorable as the terms of the existing debt. As of June 30, 2004, the Company had outstanding mortgage indebtedness of approximately $485,327 and senior unsecured debt of approximately $595,000.

The Company could become more highly leveraged which could result in an increased risk of default and in an increase in its debt service requirements.

The Company’s stated goal is to maintain total effective leverage (debt and preferred equity) as a percentage of undepreciated real estate assets in a range of 50% to 55%, to generally limit variable rate indebtedness as a percentage of total indebtedness to not more than 20% to 25% of aggregate indebtedness, and to maintain adequate liquidity through the Company’s unsecured lines of credit.

2

At June 30, 2004, the Company’s total effective leverage (debt and preferred equity) as a percentage of undepreciated real estate assets and the Company’s total variable rate indebtedness as a percentage of total indebtedness were within or below these ranges. If management adjusts the Company’s stated goal in the future, the Company could become more highly leveraged, resulting in an increase in debt service that could adversely affect funds from operations, the Company’s ability to make expected distributions to its shareholders and the Operating Partnership’s ability to make expected distributions to its limited partners and in an increased risk of default on the obligations of the Company and the Operating Partnership. In addition, the Company’s and the Operating Partnership’s ability to incur debt is limited by covenants in bank and other credit agreements and in the Company’s outstanding senior unsecured notes. The Company manages its debt to be in compliance with its stated policy and with these debt covenants, but subject to compliance with these covenants, the Company may increase the amount of outstanding debt at any time without a concurrent improvement in the Company’s ability to service the additional debt. Accordingly, the Company could become more leveraged, resulting in an increased risk of default on its obligations and in an increase in debt service requirements, both of which could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition and ability to access debt and equity capital markets in the future.

Debt financing may not be available and equity issuances could be dilutive to the company’s shareholders.

The Company’s ability to execute its business strategy depends on its access to an appropriate blend of debt financing, including unsecured lines of credit and other forms of secured and unsecured debt, and equity financing, including common and preferred equity. Debt financing may not be available in sufficient amounts, or on favorable terms or at all. If the Company issues additional equity securities to finance developments and acquisitions instead of incurring debt, the interests of existing shareholders could be diluted.

Acquired communities may not achieve anticipated results.

The Company may selectively acquire apartment communities that meet its investment criteria. The Company’s acquisition activities and their success may be exposed to the following risks:

• an acquired community may fail to achieve expected occupancy and rental rates and may fail to perform as expected;

• the Company may not be able to successfully integrate acquired properties and operations; and

• the Company’s estimates of the costs of repositioning or redeveloping the acquired property may prove inaccurate, causing the Company to fail to meet its profitability goals.

Increased competition and increased affordability of residential homes could limit the Company’s ability to retain its residents, lease apartment homes or increase or maintain rents.

The Company’s apartment communities compete with numerous housing alternatives in attracting residents, including other apartment communities and single-family rental homes, as well as owner occupied single- and multi-family homes. Competitive housing in a particular area and the increasing affordability of owner occupied single and multi-family homes caused by declining mortgage interest rates and government programs to promote home ownership could adversely affect the Company’s ability to retain its residents, lease apartment homes and increase or maintain rents.

Expansion of the Company’s operations into condominium conversion and for-sale housing (condominiums) would be a new segment of the Company’s operations involving new business risks and challenges for management.

Expansion into condominium conversions and for-sale housing (condominiums) would be a new segment of the Company’s operations. The Company’s ability to successfully complete a condominium conversion or other for-sale housing project, sell the units and achieve management’s economic goals in connection with the transaction is subject to various risks and challenges, which if they materialize, may have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition including:

3

• the inability to obtain approvals to rezone the property and releases from financing obligations and increases in costs resulting from delays in obtaining such approvals and releases;

• increases in costs of improving the property;

• lack of demand by prospective buyers;

• the inability of buyers to qualify for financing;

• lower than anticipated sale prices;

• the inability to close on sales of individual units under contract; and

• competition from other condominiums and other types of residential housing.

In addition, if the Company is unable to sell for-sale units, the expenses and carrying costs associated with the ownership of such units would continue.

Limited investment opportunities could adversely affect the Company’s growth.

The Company expects that other real estate investors will compete to acquire existing properties and to develop new properties. These competitors include insurance companies, pension and investment funds, developer partnerships, investment companies and other apartment REITs. This competition could increase prices for properties of the type that the Company would likely pursue, and competitors may have greater resources than the Company. As a result, the Company may not be able to make attractive investments on favorable terms, which could adversely affect its growth.

The Company may not be able to maintain its current dividend level.

For full year of 2004, management of the Company currently expects to maintain its current quarterly dividend payment rate to common shareholders of $0.45 per share. At this dividend rate, the Company currently expects that net cash flows from operations reduced by annual operating capital expenditures will not be sufficient to fund the dividend payments to common and preferred shareholders by approximately $10,000 to $15,000. The Company intends to use primarily the proceeds from 2004 asset sales to fund the additional cash flow necessary to fully fund the dividend payments to common shareholders. In prior periods, the additional funding, in excess of cash flows from operating activities less operating capital expenditures, required to pay the quarterly dividends was funded through a combination of line of credit borrowings and proceeds from asset sales. The Company reduced the level of its quarterly dividend from $0.78 per share to $0.45 per share effective with the quarterly dividend paid for the first quarter of 2003. The Company’s board of directors reviews the dividend quarterly and there can be no assurance that the current dividend level will be maintained.

Interest rate hedging contracts may be ineffective and may result in material charges.

From time to time when the Company anticipates issuing debt securities, it may seek to limit exposure to fluctuations in interest rates during the period prior to the pricing of the securities by entering into interest rate hedging contracts. The Company may do this to increase the predictability of its financing costs. Also, from time to time, the Company may rely on interest rate hedging contracts to limit its exposure under variable rate debt to unfavorable changes in market interest rates. If the pricing of new debt securities is not within the parameters of, or market interest rates produce a lower interest cost than the Company incurs under, a particular interest rate hedging contract, the contract is ineffective. Furthermore, the settlement of interest rate hedging contracts has involved and may in the future involve material charges. These charges are typically related to the extent and timing of fluctuations in interest rates. Despite the Company’s efforts to minimize its exposure to interest rate fluctuations, the Company cannot guarantee that it will maintain coverage for all of its outstanding indebtedness at any particular time. If the Company does not effectively protect itself from this risk, it may be subject to increased interest costs resulting from interest rate fluctuations.

Failure to succeed in new markets may limit the company’s growth.

The Company may from time to time commence development activity or make acquisitions outside of its existing market areas if appropriate opportunities arise. The Company’s historical experience in its existing markets does

4

not ensure that it will be able to operate successfully in new markets. The Company may be exposed to a variety of risks if it chooses to enter new markets. These risks include, among others:

• an inability to evaluate accurately local apartment market conditions and local economies;

• an inability to obtain land for development or to identify appropriate acquisition opportunities;

• an inability to hire and retain key personnel; and

• lack of familiarity with local governmental and permitting procedures.

Any weaknesses identified in the Company’s system of internal controls as part of the evaluation being undertaken by the Company and its independent public accountants pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires that companies evaluate and report on their systems of internal control over financial reporting. In addition, the Company’s independent public accountants must report on management’s evaluation of those controls. The Company is in the process of documenting and testing its system of internal controls over financial reporting to provide the basis for its report. During this process, the Company may identify deficiencies in its system of internal controls over financial reporting that may require remediation. However, due to the ongoing evaluation and testing of the Company’s internal controls, there can be no assurances that any such deficiencies identified may not be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses that would be required to be reported.

Terrorist attacks and the possibility of wider armed conflict may have an adverse effect on the Company’s business and operating results and could decrease the value of the Company’s assets.

Terrorist attacks and other acts of violence or war could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and operating results. Attacks or armed conflicts that directly impact one or more of the Company’s apartment communities could significantly affect the Company’s ability to operate those communities and thereby impair its ability to achieve the Company’s expected results. Further, the Company’s insurance coverage may not cover any losses caused by a terrorist attack. In addition, the adverse effects that such violent acts and threats of future attacks could have on the U.S. economy could similarly have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and results of operations. Finally, if the United States enters into and remains engaged in a wider armed conflict, the Company’s business and operating results could be adversely effected.

Losses from natural catastrophes may exceed insurance coverage.

The Company carries comprehensive liability, fire, flood, extended coverage and rental loss insurance on its properties, which are believed to be of the type and amount customarily obtained on real property assets. The Company intends to obtain similar coverage for properties acquired in the future. However, some losses, generally of a catastrophic nature, such as losses from floods or earthquakes, may be subject to limitations. The Company exercises discretion in determining amounts, coverage limits and deductibility provisions of insurance, with a view to maintaining appropriate insurance on its investments at a reasonable cost and on suitable terms; however, the Company may not be able to maintain its insurance at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect it against potential losses. Further, the Company’s insurance costs could increase in future periods. If the Company suffers a substantial loss, its insurance coverage may not be sufficient to pay the full current market value or current replacement value of the lost investment. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations and other factors also might make it infeasible to use insurance proceeds to replace a property after it has been damaged or destroyed.

Potential liability for environmental contamination could result in substantial costs.

The Company is in the business of owning, operating, developing, acquiring and, from time to time, selling real estate. Under various federal, state and local environmental laws, as a current or former owner or operator, the Company could be required to investigate and remediate the effects of contamination of currently or formerly owned real estate by hazardous or toxic substances, often regardless of its knowledge of or responsibility for the contamination and solely by virtue of its current or former ownership or operation of the real estate. In addition, the Company could be held liable to a governmental authority or to third parties for property damage and for

5

investigation and clean-up costs incurred in connection with the contamination. These costs could be substantial, and in many cases environmental laws create liens in favor of governmental authorities to secure their payment. The presence of such substances or a failure to properly remediate any resulting contamination could materially and adversely affect the Company’s ability to borrow against, sell or rent an affected property.

Compliance or failure to comply with laws requiring access to the Company’s properties by disabled persons could result in substantial cost.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act of 1988 and other federal, state and local laws generally require that public accommodations be made accessible to disabled persons. Noncompliance could result in the imposition of fines by the government or the award of damages to private litigants. These laws may require the Company to modify its existing properties. These laws may also restrict renovations by requiring improved access to such buildings by disabled persons or may require the Company to add other structural features that increase construction costs. Legislation or regulations adopted in the future may impose further burdens or restrictions on the Company with respect to improved access by disabled persons. The Company cannot ascertain the costs of compliance with these laws, which may be substantial.

The Company may fail to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.

The Company’s qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes depends upon its ability to meet on a continuing basis, through actual annual operating results, distribution levels and diversity of stock ownership, the various qualification tests and organizational requirements imposed upon REITs under the Internal Revenue Code. The Company believes that it has qualified for taxation as a REIT for federal income tax purposes commencing with its taxable year ended December 31, 1993, and plans to continue to meet the requirements to qualify as a REIT in the future. Many of these requirements, however, are highly technical and complex. The Company cannot guarantee, therefore, that it has qualified or will continue to qualify in the future as a REIT. The determination that the Company qualifies as a REIT for federal income tax purposes requires an analysis of various factual matters that may not be totally within the Company’s control. Even a technical or inadvertent mistake could jeopardize the Company’s REIT status. Furthermore, Congress and the IRS might make changes to the tax laws and regulations, and the courts might issue new decisions that make it more difficult, or impossible, for the Company to remain qualified as a REIT. The Company does not believe, however, that any pending or proposed tax law changes would jeopardize its REIT status.

If the Company were to fail to qualify for taxation as a REIT in any taxable year, and certain relief provisions of the Internal Revenue Code did not apply, the Company would be subject to tax (including any applicable alternative minimum tax) on its taxable income at regular corporate rates, leaving less money available for distributions to its shareholders. In addition, distributions to shareholders in any year in which the Company failed to qualify would not be deductible by the Company for federal income tax purposes nor would they be required to be made. Unless entitled to relief under specific statutory provisions, the Company also would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which it ceased to qualify as a REIT. It is not possible to predict whether in all circumstances the Company would be entitled to such statutory relief. The Company’s failure to qualify as a REIT likely would have a significant adverse effect on the value of its securities.

The Operating Partnership may fail to be treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes.

Management believes that the Operating Partnership qualifies, and has so qualified since its formation, as a partnership for federal income tax purposes and not as a publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation. No assurance can be provided, however, that the IRS will not challenge the treatment of the Operating Partnership as a partnership for federal income tax purposes or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. If the IRS were successful in treating the Operating Partnership as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, then the taxable income of the Operating Partnership would be taxable at regular corporate income tax rates. In addition, the treatment of the Operating Partnership as a corporation would cause the Company to fail to qualify as a REIT. See “The Company may fail to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes” above.

The Company’s real estate assets may be subject to impairment charges.

6

The Company continually evaluates the recoverability of the carrying value of its real estate assets for impairment indicators. Factors considered in evaluating impairment of the Company’s existing real estate assets held for investment include significant declines in property operating profits, recurring property operating losses and other significant adverse changes in general market conditions that are considered permanent in nature. Generally, a real estate asset held for investment is not considered impaired if the undiscounted, estimated future cash flows of the asset over its estimated holding period are in excess of the asset’s net book value at the balance sheet date. Assumptions used to estimate annual and residual cash flow and the estimated holding period of such assets require the judgment of management.

In 2004 and in prior years, the Company recorded impairment charges on assets held for investment and assets designated as held for sale. There can be no assurance that the Company will not take additional charges in the future related to the impairment of its assets. As of the six month period ended June 30, 2004 and the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, management believes it has applied reasonable estimates and judgments in determining the proper classification of its real estate assets. However, should external or internal circumstances change requiring the need to shorten the holding periods or adjust the estimated future cash flows of certain of the Company’s assets, the Company could be required to record additional impairment charges. If any real estate asset held for investment is considered impaired, a loss is provided to reduce the carrying value of the asset to its fair value, less selling costs. Any future impairment could have a material adverse affect on the Company’s results of operations and funds from operations in the period in which the charge is taken.

The Company’s shareholders may not be able to effect a change in control.

The articles of incorporation and bylaws of the Company and the partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership contain a number of provisions that could delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for the Company’s shareholders or otherwise be in their best interests, including the following:

Preferred shares. The Company’s articles of incorporation provide that the Company has the authority to issue up to 20,000,000 shares of preferred stock, of which 2,900,000 were outstanding as of June 30, 2004. The board of directors has the authority, without the approval of the shareholders, to issue additional shares of preferred stock and to establish the preferences and rights of such shares. The issuance of preferred stock could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control of the Company, even if a change of control were in the shareholders’ interest.

Consent Rights of the Unitholders. Under the partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership, the Company may not merge or consolidate with another entity unless the merger includes the merger of the Operating Partnership, which requires the approval of the holders of a majority of the outstanding units of the Operating Partnership. If the Company were to ever hold less than a majority of the units, this voting requirement might limit the possibility for an acquisition or a change of control.

Ownership Limit. One of the requirements for maintenance of the Company’s qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes is that no more than 50% in value of its outstanding capital stock may be owned by five or fewer individuals, including entities specified in the Internal Revenue Code, during the last half of any taxable year. To facilitate maintenance of its qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, the ownership limit under the Company’s articles of incorporation prohibits ownership, directly or by virtue of the attribution provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, by any person or persons acting as a group of more than 6.0% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock, subject to an exception for shares of common stock held by Mr. Williams and Mr. Glover, the Company’s former chairman and former vice chairman and certain investors for which the Company has waived the ownership limit. Together, these limitations are referred to as the “ownership limit.” Further, the Company’s articles of incorporation include provisions allowing it to stop transfers of and redeem its shares that are intended to assist the Company in complying with these requirements. While the Company has committed that it will not utilize the ownership limit in its articles of incorporation as an anti-takeover device, these provisions could still deter, delay or defer someone from taking control of the Company.

7