according to the November 10th 10-Q:
September 30, 1999, the Company owned or was in the process
of developing 51 correctional and detention
facilities, of which 40 facilities were operating,
were under construction or expansion and three were in
the planning stages, with a total aggregate cost of
$2.3 billion. At September 30, 1999, New CCA leased 32
facilities from the Company, governmental agencies leased
five facilities from the Company and
>>>private operators leased three facilities from the
Company.<<< (emphasis added)
The Company expects to
lease six of the facilities under construction or
development to New CCA."
Anyone know who these
'private operators' are?
Too Many Anonymous
Convict-Keepers Expect Rewards
Your absolutely right, I thought about that after
I hit the "post" button.
Stock quiet today,
little activity either way...no large bidders in sight,
but they don't seem to show up till $9 even.
take a public company private at a bargain price,
fix it up and then take it public again, you can get
very rich. LBOs still work if the price is right.
Nonethelss, I don't think that is where we are headed.
I've been working with someone over the last year
selling their private business. Private business are
valued at a faction of public ones these days. The VERY
rough rule of thumb is 4-5 times cash flow for smaller
businesses. Forget raising money easily too.
This wait and recover is where I am . it's better
to wait and recover your losses than take a 50% hit.
Of course I think we can.
This was my safe
bet, well I wish I stayed hi-tech...
for the yield hoping it would continue
What if pzn remains a builder of prisons and
establishes new relationships outside of OPCO ? They could
build for the county, state or fed. and let them run
the prisons. They are building in Europe and
Australia as reported at their site. Let the goverment
agency finance the building.If this sounds like i'm
getting confused your right!
Tmacker, there are actually three facilities
leased to two private operators - one facility in
California leased to Cornell Corrections, and two in Texas
leased to "Community Education Partners", whoever they
Idontwanttohearit and others - Doesn't converting back to a C-Corp
at this point actually conserve capital? If what we
understand to be true is true (which is always a big if with
these guys), none of the regular REIT dividends for '99
has been paid. This means that the company has to pay
out dividends next year equal to 95% of '99 net
income. If they convert back, the most they have to pay
out is 40% or so of '99 net, maybe a lot less if
OPCO's losses reduce taxible income
Of course, we shareholders get screwed again, since
our company's money goes to the IRS instead of us.
But at least in that case they are using funds that
they have rather than funds that they are borrowing.
I don't know why all of you are talking about
converting it back to a c CORP.Read between the lines in the
press release, these crooks are teaming with acapital
partner and taking it private at fire sale price,which is
what their intentions were all along.
I don't think there is any doubt that c-corp
conversion would preserve capital. You are
But there are downsides. I still believe lawsuits
would be inevitable, and this company better obtain
sound legal advice before such a move. And, as you
mentioned, paying out money to the IRS, after all we have
endured, sorely rankles. The adverse short-run effect on
the market price of PZN would surely dwarf anything
we have seen so far (see PAH chart for an excellent
I'd STILL like to hear some opinions on the
feasibility of maintaining REIT status for 1999, but
converting for 2000, so as to end the long-term drain but
preserve short-term stability and credibility. Perhaps
such a move would be acceptable to bankers and