Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Corrections Corporation of America Message Board

  • mecosmo2 mecosmo2 Feb 8, 2000 9:23 AM Flag

    SLOW GROWTH....., NO DEAL!!

    OUT-TAKES from First Union Securities. . . .


    It Appears To Make More Sense To De-REIT Without The
    Equity Infusion? The
    convertible equity infusion is
    at the heart of the proposed transactions and still
    requires
    common shareholder approval (slated for April-May 2000).

    analysis (using revised PZN estimates and consolidating
    operating losses at OPCO/CCA,
    and de-REITing), fixed
    charge coverage ratio (adjusted EBITDA divided into
    total interest
    and dividend payments) would be about
    1.9x in late 2000 WITH the convertible
    equity
    infusion. Assuming PZN simply de-REITed and did not take
    the convertible equity, fixed
    charge coverage
    would be about 2.3x.
    23, 1999, i9PZN: Back To EPS;
    Consolidating PZN With OPCO, Then De-REITing; �No
    Pain No
    Gain�li for additional information. We are simply
    highlighting that we do not
    believe PZN�s financial
    condition, even when consolidating OPCO, is as dire as the
    cost
    of this equity infusion implies. Using estimated
    consolidated after-tax earnings per share,
    we also believe
    PZN�s financial performance would be healthier, by as
    much as $0.10-
    $0.15 per share (off a $0.33 cent
    EPS base in 2000).

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • why neither of them has asked my advice? Not all questions get answered in this world -- and not all the questions asked. Well, as Michener's admiral said, "where do we find such men?"

    • Be a good samaritan, change the world..why don't you take one home at no cost and teach him right from wrong?

    • with you statement by placing Crants and our esteemed Gov in the same context. Please explain.

      Thanks

    • glad to help you all out with some good advice.
      Drip, Drip.

    • You seem to forget that it is always the
      government that makes the laws, enforces the laws, sends
      people to prison, leaves people in prison or releases
      them, and determines how private prisons will be run.
      All the moral and ethical issues are controlled by
      the government even when private prisons are run for
      profit.

      The idea of a private prison is to carry out
      government dictated policy more efficiently. Government
      control is not reduced and in some ways may be increased.
      It is sometimes easier to order your contractor to
      make a change that to make the change
      yourself.

      The value-added by the private prisons is measured by
      two factors: 1. The government's evaluation that the
      private prison achieved the government's goals (obviously
      the government must change contractors if the private
      prison fails to achieve these goals) and 2. The profit
      the private prison earns. Profit is value added to
      the society because it measures the amount by which
      the product produced (incarceration per government
      standards) exceeds the cost of production (society's
      material, land, and labor resources used to produce the
      product).

      Are you in any way associated with a labor union
      involved in prison work? This would explain your aversion
      to private prisons, but it would suggest that this
      aversion is strictly a result of your personal profit
      motive.

    • It sounds to me as though your points are best saved for an arguement about privatizing the judicial system.

    • Prisons themselves have social value, though you
      could argue that there are better ways to take care of
      serious offenders. The social value lies in keeping those
      who can't live in society off the streets -- what's
      it worth to you to prevent burglary of your home,
      rape of a loved one, or a scamster tricking your
      mother out of her life savings? Private prisons are
      simply facilities. The state does not delegate the
      decision to deprive citizens of liberty -- it only
      contracts for their custody and housing. If motel 6 was
      secure, they could conceivably put them up there. Your
      beef is on behalf of civil service jobs, not the
      philosophy of who gets to take away one's liberty. "Value
      added" is not the issue, it's cost subtracted. All that
      really matters is performance -- security, adherence to
      law, and (if you believe it works) rehabilitation. I
      think there are better ways to deal with the problems
      of crime (have published on the subject), but
      neither Crants nor Gray Davis have asked my opinion.

    • I am suggesting that private prisons cost more
      than they are worth. I have yet to see them "add
      value" to society to a great degree.

      Next to
      taking a persons life, the deprivation of a persons
      liberty in one of the most serious things a society can
      do and should be the job of a goverment agency.

      That criminal who's freedom has been taken away still
      is out of control. You just have them put in a cage
      with other imprisoned people and those people who
      watch over them. Many criminals do need to be taken off
      the street. Many don't.

      Are we suggesting the
      the answer to the crime problem is to lock people
      away as cheaply as possible without looking at the
      effects this policy has on society when they get out?

      If all this is governed by profit and loss why would
      we want to rehabilitate prisoners?
      The more
      people we imprison the more money we make.

      Don't
      we really want them to come back so that we can make
      more money off of them? Our country has one of the
      most serious crime problens in the world. Why would we
      want to solve the crime problem at all?

    • ...make money off the sick. Biotech investors
      make money off the hopes and dreams of the sick. Food
      co. investors make money off the hungry. Clothing co.
      investors make money off the poor. Housing investors make
      money off the otherwise homless. Energy investors make
      money off those polluting the air. Tech investors make
      money off gadgets we don't need.

      Come to think
      of it, clothing makers make money off the captivity
      of others since they must clothe prisoners. Steel
      companies because steel is used to make prisons. Concrete
      companies since they build foundations of prisons. Phone
      companies since there are phones in prisons. Drug
      comnpanies since prisoners need medical care. Farmers since
      prisoners need to eat.

      Whew, there's a pool of
      blood running down my shirt now.

    • IMHO this company is officially in play and we should see a sizable return from here.

    • View More Messages
 
CXW
15.90Sep 23 4:00 PMEDT