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

Corrections Corporation of America Message Board

  • mcprison mcprison Aug 25, 2000 7:27 PM Flag

    Pacific Life votes

    Pacific Life Votes On Prison Realty's

    NEWPORT BEACH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 25,
    2000--Pacific Life Friday announced its intent to vote for the
    charter amendments, the merger and related transactions
    as detailed in Prison Realty's proxy statement dated
    July 31, 2000.

    Prison Realty has given notice
    to stockholders to consider and vote upon proposals
    to adopt certain amendments to its charter to permit
    a restructuring of Prison Realty including not
    being taxed as a REIT beginning in year 2000 and to
    approve the merger of Corrections Corporation of America
    and Prison Realty.

    Though the proposals are
    less than perfect, Pacific Life believes that the
    merger is a necessary first step to begin the process of
    stabilizing Prison Realty.

    Founded in 1868, Pacific
    Life provides life and health insurance products,
    individual annuities and group employee benefits and offers
    to individuals, businesses and pension plans a
    variety of investment products and services. Over the
    past five years, the company has grown from the 25th
    to the 16th largest life insurance company in the

    The Pacific Life family of companies manages more
    than $315 billion in assets, making it one of the
    largest financial institutions in America, and currently
    counts 67 of the 100 largest U.S. companies as
    clients(2). Additional information about Pacific Life can be
    obtained at its Web site,

    Pacific Life is rated A++ (superior) by A.M. Best, AA+
    (very strong) by Standard & Poor's, AA+ (very strong)
    by Fitch, and Aa3 (excellent) by Moody's for
    financial strength(3). Pacific Life is a member of IMSA
    (Insurance Marketplace Standards Association), whose
    membership promotes ethical market conduct for individual
    life insurance and annuities.

    (1) Source: The
    Townsend & Schupp Co., as of Dec. 31, 1999.

    Data compiled by Pacific Life using the 2000 FORTUNE
    500(R) list.

    (3) Ratings do not apply to Pacific
    Life's separate accounts.



    Pacific Life Insurance, Newport

    Thomas J. Mays, 949/219-3639

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Please continue to report spam abuse to Yahoo!. I
      think their reporting system is automated and they have
      stopped responding to individual complaints--for which I
      am very grateful. Hopefully we can help them
      identify the accounts where the spam most often

    • GenJack, reporting spammers to Yahoo is a waste
      of time. I started reporting spammers to Yahoo a day
      or so after they added that feature. It took them a
      week to respond to me and by that time several hundred
      posts had gone by. complaints about their failure to
      respone in a timely manner get no response. Maybe if
      every poster on every board reported ever piece of
      spam, Yahoo would take it seriously and do something,
      but I have given up reporting. I just look at the
      topic and most times I recognize spam, especially after
      seeing it on another board, and just pass it by. The
      posting alias is ofter no help because the same spam
      appears under dozens of different aliaisis.


    • sandplant_3, the General is unable to answer your
      question with certainty, but he can proffer a couple of

      Last Wednesday afternoon, August 30th, Yahoo was
      experiencing some problems with its servers. The General knows
      this, because he posted four messages to four separate
      boards that afternoon. All showed up right after being
      zapped, but only two of them made it to their intended

      The General noticed on Thursday, that there were some
      numbered but otherwise untitled slots (you can still see
      one on this board between 8/30 and 8/31) on some of
      the boards he monitors. Almost a day after he'd
      zapped the message, one of those numbered-but-untitled
      slots on another board suddenly had his long-lost
      posting appearing there.

      The other possibility is
      that, almost 2 weeks ago, Yahoo added the "Ignore" and
      "Abuse" options to these message boards. In case you
      hadn't noticed, there has been a great increase in
      "spam" type messages on these boards in recent months
      and it's only getting worse. On some of the less
      active boards (than PZN's is), the spammers almost
      outnumber the contributors who want to discuss the subject
      stock. If someone is reporting this "spam" abuse to
      Yahoo, it could be that the missing numbered postings is
      Yahoo's response to the complaint.

      Since very
      often spammers use different IDs to spam the same
      message content, using the "Ignore" option won't bring
      relief from their cluttering up your screen with their
      spam. If you want to rid these boards of these
      spammers, you've got to persistently report them whenever
      they appear.

    • How about this 'hypothetical':
      A state
      retirement fund owns significant PZN shares. Investments are
      ultimately the responsibility of the state's investment
      board, which oversees retirement investments of all
      State employees, -- including law enforcement
      employees, prosecutors, legislators, judges, parole

      Any one stock may not pack much of a whallop
      because of the size of the fund, but doesn't the scenario
      does present some interesting conflicts? And a focus
      on the theoretical conflict could lead some
      municipal investment boards to avoid investment in PZN/CCA
      or similar privatized entity, even with the degree
      of separation provided by the REIT.

      By the way, does anyone know why there are
      occasional gaps in the message # sequence?

    • is not hard to understand. Government jobs are
      much more secure (tenure, seniority, veterans
      preference, even counting of military service toward civil
      service retirement in the federal system), pension funds
      not subject to raids by Al Dunlap types, everything
      is written into law/ labor contracts so no
      termination at will, etc. Slack labor markets do not put
      downward pressure on wages in the public sector, and
      pensions are usually defined benefit type, not subject to
      vagaries of markets. Private bennies like stock options,
      401(k), etc. are attractive -- unless you are a PZN
      employee, then they can be sour indeed. Would you want a
      big piece of your retirement riding on Doc and
      Junior's judgement?

    • PZN's problems are the crucial issue at
      present--I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Also, I agree
      that there will always be situations where labor
      unions are needed--my point was that these situations
      are becoming more the exception than the

      I note, though, that the other privates continue a
      negative trend. Maybe the whole idea of privates will
      never work. If we assume that it can, however, then the
      question becomes why hasn't it worked for the past three
      years? Well, the economy has been good and cheap labor
      is hard to get--one possibility. Other than the
      infamous government "red tape administrations" how can
      privates be more cost-effective than publics? Again, labor
      costs, IMO.

      The union fight against privatization
      has been strong. What do they perceive the threat to

      Your response to me was excellent, thanks. I can't
      begin to predict the industry outcome nor the economy,
      nor forward-looks at PZN--but I think that PZN and
      others will be positively impacted if the majority of
      elected officials are of the "less government is better"
      side of the fence. We won't know the potential of
      privatization until it has had the opportunity to operate in a
      free market, if that is ever possible.

    • I'm trying to get a grip on the labor ideas you
      raise. Since other posters seem to be awaiting either
      price revival or some kind of odd German whirlwind,
      I'll warn that this post may be arcane and
      academic..i.e. boring.

      Taking your good points in order,
      my comments are these:
      *If the labor market will
      be the key to PZN's success, there may need to be
      some adjustments made to the forward-looking
      statements. I don't know just how those adjustments would
      fall out.

      * My original impetus to post on
      this board was the result of a firm impression that
      PZN's problems had become the actual issue; that they
      were no longer tangential. I don't know that PZN's
      problems CAN be put aside, as they call into question the
      larger enterprise.

      * You may be right re:
      thievery vs. ego. Only a few people know for certain, and
      I'm not among them.

      * If the good economy has
      worked against privates, should we examine the context
      in more detail? If this investment flourishes only
      in hard economic times, how should it be viewed in
      the larger policy context? (Initial concerns arise

      * I am not ready to discount the value of
      labor unions. Your idea that present day laws have
      replaced collective bargaining is interesting, but the
      melding economy has really altered all definitions. Not
      everyone has access to the protection of these laws, and
      history is bursting with examples of abuses.... I don't
      know where to take this further...other than to say
      that I have no connection with organized labor or any
      of its accessories (dawg, please note). I am, in
      fact, a policy wonk.
      labor costs are the lynchpin. Maybe not. In any event,
      the systemic ailments of PZN need to be diagnosed
      before we embark on a larger-scale privitization of the
      prison system... Why? To forestall abuse of pubic funds,
      public trust, and shareholder equity.

      do you think, anyone?

    • IMO the labor market will ultimately be the key
      to the success of private prison enterprises. PZN's
      problems aside (though I should say that I would
      characterize them as more "ego" than "theivery" based--lack of
      foresight rather than criminal intent), the cost of labor
      will ultimately be the difference between public and
      private. I think that the good economy has worked against
      the privates in this battle. Unions were originally
      developed to protect worker rights, however over the past
      30 years or so, federal and state laws have been
      passed to provide this protection. IMO it is
      increasingly difficult to justify the need for a
      union--especially from an employee perspective when it comes to
      fair treatment. Currently the primary benefit from a
      union is not job protection or safety, it is higher
      wages. When there are not enough workers to go around,
      they will elect to work union for the pay and
      consequently the privates must pay more to retain enough
      staff. If unemployment increases, however, workers will
      be forced to take the lesser-paying jobs at the
      privates--allowing the privates to offer savings to the government
      plus profits for the shareholders. The unions argue
      that this will cause unfair treatment of employees.
      IMO the jury is still out on that issue.

    • There is no way to stop crime. With out it there would be no society only heaven which all religions pray upon!!!!!!! Earth will never be heaven, Hitler already tryed it????

    • your time in crafting a response is appreciated.
      Here's my counterpoint, as best I can present it

      - I see 'society' as being neutrally affected by
      Doc et al. We are incarcerating people based on laws
      and sentencing guidelines, and these are nudged by
      political trends that swing with the pendulum. From this
      standpoint, a prison is just a place, no matter who runs

      - I like your competition model, but don't see that
      it works here: Hospital patients get to choose where
      they go, but prisoners do not. Prisoners are a captive
      population and don't participate in the market in the same
      way. It is the federal BOP or individual State which
      is the "buyer"...

      - Some states can send
      prisoners to non-state prisons; Others cannot. Lobbyists
      are busy trying to convert those states which
      currently retain exclusive public oversight, and in some
      cases, companies () are building spec prisons in states
      where the legislature has yet to decide the matter. I
      agree that new prisons can provide an economic boost to
      a depressed area...but I can't get my arms around
      the larger social implications of that dynamic, so I
      can't comment further.

      I don't know where
      things stand with federal contracts, other than to
      speculate that those are politically vulnerable.

      Here is what I have gleaned;
      Prisons are essential.
      Historically, governments have had a monopoly on prisons. Now,
      we have an example of a private prison enterprise
      which has been able to take full advantage of a
      guaranteed market -- and what has happened? It totters on
      the brink of insolvency, due not to market
      miscalculation but to thievery and mismanagement -- for there
      are a handful of people who are very rich now, their
      wealth having been provided by faithful investors who
      have held on and are now held by the shorthairs via
      this proxy vote. This is contrasted with the
      circumstance of taxpayers who fund public prisons...I don't
      honestly know just how to interpret that
      Lastly, as a general observation, we need to be careful
      when we open the ticket booth to the public trough.
      Oversight is needed to prevent skimming of public funds. By
      my lights, the oversight at CCA/PZN has been
      woefully lacking, and it has threatened the acceptibility
      of privatization in general.

    • View More Messages
14.60-0.18(-1.22%)Sep 28 4:00 PMEDT