This stock continues to fascinate me. At first, I thought the run-up after the reverse split was due simply to momentum players. A couple of times I thought the momentum was over, but....no. The stock continues to hold its own, well above its initial reverse split price. And I can't help but wonder why. The company's two biggest hurdles - bank refinancing and dealing with empty beds (fill them or sell them) remain.
And then I remembered the last conference call, where someone from CCA stated "survival is no longer an issue." Could this statement have led investors to assume that getting the credit line refinanced will not be an issue? Remember that even if it happens it remains to be seen whether it can be done on terms and conditions that will allow the company to grow and prosper.
But maybe this positive assumption about bank refinancing is embedded in the stock price, which would at least partly explain the run-up following the reverse split, and then the slight decline following the release of Justice Department crime statistics showing a marked decline in violent crime which, of course, implies that more prisons may not be needed. (I think this data is being misread, but that's another story)
I'd be interested to read other comments on this issue.
The General (as can be seen from his Profile), has had about 3 1/2 years of message board experience under his (regretably, expanding) belt by now (as have many others on this thread).
Three and a have years is enough time to have witnessed the many "cycles" and changes in both tenor and character that various mbs (which the General follows) can undergo.
And these "cycles" are, in themselves, a source of amazement to the General.
As many here may recall, the General (as well as some others here) had abandoned this thread for some time. The General's reason for taking his leave was not so much because of the misfortunes which befell the company and its stock's price, as it was for the character and tenor of what this forum had become.
Certainly, people are entitled to vent their anger and frustrations, and contrary and negative viewpoints definitely have their place here, but there are multiple ways of doing so and turning a board into "trash" doesn't have to be one of them.
To echo flipper's sentiments in message #17920, the various "contributions" here can be stimulating, enlightening, and educational. And, until the nicster figures out a way to offset his stock market losses by levying a cover charge inorder to access his postings here, it can be rather entertaining, too.
The point of the General's message, however, is to remind everyone that consideration should always be given to the reader who may have no interest in poring through messages that have nothing to do with CXW, the incarceration industry, whether private or public, or any aspects of the stock market, either in general or with specificity.
It is with regard to those lurkers that considerate message-board manners dictate that we remember to preface our message's title with an (OT) for "off-topic" content.
And, btw, if it's the increased contributions from women that have brought civility to the discussion here (not to mention elevatiing the content), the General salutes them and says, "more power to ya."
Re the lower crime statistics...
I think there may really be less violent crime. Somewhere I read that 90% of violent crimes are committed by a very small percentage of criminals...about 3-5%. The number of violent crimes was higher some years ago because the short sentences and early releases kept the violent offenders on the streets where they could continually repeat their attacks. Now that many are in prison, the stats are down. If the powers that be do studies that confirm this, then there will always be a need for beds for these "clients."
I'm guessing that prisons will be used more and more for enforced drug rehabilitation. That requires beds. And as the population continues to rise, the number of beds for people who commit the lesser crimes will increase. I do not see the need for prisons to diminsh much. Yes, as long as business is good, people will build and we will reach oversupply....just ike other businesses...unless managements get smarter about their population projections. If we reach oversupplty, we will have the usual inventory correction and then recover. But also, I think we may see detectives turn to more cold case work and use the new technology to solve old crimes. This will add to the prison population. The new forensics also increases the conviction rate. Another source of clients.
Maybe I am biased, but I grew up in the inner city in a neighborhood tormented by a gang. Back then the gangs were not so bad, but they were still into crime. It is hard for me to imagine a society without criminals. There is always a certain % (about 3 according to sociologists) of people who ENJOY crime. Another 3-5% engages in crime for economicor psychiatric reasons.
The USA is accused of having more of its population in prison than any other country. Well I look at some of the other countries: Russia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cambodia, dare I mention China, most of the African countries (gang rape is accepted as mens'natural right in South Africa), many of the South American countries, and I see that instead of being in prison, the crooks are the politicians who run the country. As for the western democracies...in many cases our laws protect a higher standard of ethical behavior than theirs. Take bribery, for instance, doing business on the basis of bribes is a way o life. It is basically dishonest because it gives an unfair advantage to the rich. For this reason we jail people who ask for bribes.
European corporate execs. frequently get together and set prices. In the USA that's a crime. And so forth. I'm getting off my soap box now. Just think that a lot of the attacks on us are not very well thought out.
Projected demographics indicate that around 2010 the % of people over 40 will be pretty big. This should lower the % of criminals because criminals tend to commit less and less crime after age 30. But, since the population is growing, the number of criminals may still be rising. 2010 is just too far out for me to get a good handle on.
The prediction is that marijuana and quite possibly cocaine will be regulated in the very near future.
Hundreds of thousands of prisoners jailed for marijuana will be set free because, basically, marijuana doesn't impair mobility or the ability to hold a job. The same can be said for cocaine.
The only way Mexico and Columbia can escape corruption is to get rid of their drug problem. Up until now, they followed U.S. lead, but now they refuse to go on. President Vincente Fox of Mexico said upon taking office that now it is time for the U.S. to own up to its demand problem. Drug use is not a supply problem. Everyone knows this now except people who own stocks in private prisons.
Private prisons mostly contain nonviolent convicts. Nonviolent convicts are primarily illegal drug users and sellers.
So, I bring you bad news.
Wow! That was a lot of info to chew on, but very interesting and worth reading. Where I (and maybe you, too) differ with some of the so-called "analysis" of this topic (i.e., New York Times and other media outlets), is that I believe that prisons have had a positive impact on the crime rate. And, you're also correct in that a very small percentage of people (perhaps as few as 7 percent of all males) are responsible for between half and 2/3 of all violent crime. If these people are locked up in prison, they can't bother you and me.
Where I think people (like the NY Times) get it wrong is that they come to the debate believing that most of the people in prison are there for non-violent, first time drug offenses. The data for this can be confusing since there are some very violent people who are in prison because of plea bargains related to drug offenses (i.e., the offense for which they were convicted is much tamer than what they were originally arrested for). But some data I've seen indicate that less than 10 percent of more than 1 million people in state prisons are in merely for drug possession, and the federal rate is even lower - 2.2 percent of all federal criminals are there solely for possession (trafficking is of course higher, but still lot lower than violent crimes).
princessalouie, you beat the General to this mb with your subject matter.
What is the expression about "'great minds' running in similar channels."?
Actually, the General had intended to post his TAke on the subject yesterday, after the close, and had gone through almost all of the stats gathering and the attendant calcs when he decided to hold off till today. Other matters have required his attention but he hopes to address your topic later today.
One thing he will say (it's called a "tease"), his opinion views this recent "price" situation a little differently.
Film @ '11.'