Thread regarding SAS Institute layoffs

There will be layoffs come January — at least, “voluntary” layoffs in which redundant managers are offered severance.

The re-org may also include involuntary layoffs. Finally, re-orgs always make folks unhappy and motivate some to leave.

People are getting hurt. The ax often falls on those who don’t deserve it. For some, in this economy, the damage ends their career.

Practice kindness and show compassion. “We should at least be decent to one another as we shift the deck chairs around…”

@23e Thanks. I don’t waste my time with Hackathons.

@1zt

You are a stud! I bet you’re the fastest typist in the Hackathons.

@1zn They can have all the opinions they want. The world needs slow people also.

Yes anyone who doesn’t run a $3bn hobby activity should not ever post or have opinions! Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!!!!!

/s smh

@1vd There is indeed tax benefits to R&D work. So what?
Seems like something a “real business” might take advantage of.

As opposed to a hobby. “You know what? I’m going to grow a company from nothing to 3 billion and become one of the wealthiest people on the planet just for the R&D investments”

When you get off the couch and try doing the same thing in the form of a “real business” let us know.

Unless I hear from you in that regard I’ll assume you are still mooching off of the “hobby business”. Or perhaps you left and are instead mooching off of someone else’s “real business”

Enjoy your opinions

@1vd Bam, this is a spot on assessment!

Discount what I said all you like. In my opinion, it’s a hobby business for the uber wealthy. Public, private, or whatever, if it were run like a business, many of those products and teams wouldn’t exist - the returns they produce do not offset their costs. Employees would produce tangible units of value. Instead, they add features in an effort to chase new business.

At that wealth level, have you considered that paying non-productive employees may be a more attractive alternative to paying taxes on gains from other investments? If I remember correctly, there was something about R&D “investments” having some tax benefits.

My guess is The Umstead is another hobby business and each family member has their own hobby area in the enterprise to provide health insurance and to avoid being “the idle rich”.

SAS is run like a business -- but not like a public corporation.

@1sq I’m writing off everything you said. Of course it is run like a business. It is clearly not a hobby.

Easy from the cheap seats.

@1sq

it was fun if not very remunerative when the high growth and good profit was part of those hobby activities. hope those of you still there return to both growth and profits.

@1s9 “the idea that SAS has had anything resembling large layoffs”

SAS has publicly announced over 1,000 people laid off. One can easily obtain that total from SAS’s public statements, available on the Web.

SAS does not publicly announce small layoffs, e.g. when 5 people are laid off from Department X. There may be a few hundred more in that category.

So the total involuntarily laid off may be around 1500, or 10% of the company.

There are also the “voluntary layoffs”, when an employee is told that “You are no longer performing at your level”, or “Your position is no longer needed”. Such employees are given a choice between a lower salary or a severance package. I’m not sure whether we should call these layoffs, though if they choose the severance, the effect is the same.

I totally agree that any 50-year-old company has dead weight, and I’ll bet that none of us would trust HR to tell who they are.

"The whole growth/profit argument assumes that the place is run like a business"

If SAS was ran like a business, GAAP would have happened long ago, loser products would not be supported (or sunk), JMP conferences would not be uber swanky, the Art Department would not exist, Viya would not be a thorn in SAS' side, and Chief Operating Officers would have real world experience.. This short list is just the tip of the iceberg. Andre B wanted to run SAS like a business and didn't last. The more things change the more they remain the same?

The whole growth/profit argument assumes that the place is run like a business. In many ways it isn’t. We only hear about revenue and profitability, but never see nor hear where the money comes from, nor do we see cost-conscious behaviors. For all we know, it comes from somewhere other than sales and renewals. Real estate, appreciation on investment accounts, wherever. The people who know aren’t telling.

What if you changed your perspective and thought of this place as an extremely rich guy’s hobby? The employees are pets/patrons employed at whim. They aren’t there to make a profit, but as busy showpieces.

Would you make the same arguments, or would you chalk the place up as some employment anomaly, write it off, and “let it go”?

@1rg that was my point. Growth comes with risk. Unprofitable growth of startups especially so. It works for select few.

I’ll take profitable growth or flat with consistent profits.

I think where I disagree with most here is the idea that SAS has had anything resembling large layoffs (involuntary separation from company).

And while they are painful I’ll also assert that any 50 year old company of SAS size has a LOT of dead weight. Listening to this forum there are clearly several here, I don’t trust HR to be able to tell who they are though.

It's been estimated that 90% of tech startups fail. SAS was a brilliant exception. In the early years, they did most things right.

Startups are a different beast. Unicorn startups even more so. Growth all day long.

But how many of these startups will prove to be hollow? They are all borrowing money at insane rates and producing little of actual value. The appearance of growth “all day long” for as long as the bubble lasts but how about when the those capital investors wake up some morning with raging hangovers and lying next to god knows what? Regret will set in.

@1pj I apologize if my post appeared condescending. But it’s clear from previous posts that some believe, “if we’re profitable, we’re good”.

In fact, SAS is profitable with layoffs. The people who got laid off don’t think it’s good at all.

If SAS remains independent, even with layoffs, we agree that employees should prefer Profit over Growth.

If you believe, as I do, that SAS will be sold, buyers prefer Growth. And if SAS had Growth, they would not need layoffs.

Good luck to all.

@1ps agreed. That is why I specifically called out established (50 year 3 billion). Profit all day long.

Startups are a different beast. Unicorn startups even more so. Growth all day long.

At startups (that may go IPO), you need growth first and foremost. Of course profitability ultimately has to come, but not necessarily immediately. They are trying to create something that has never been done and scale to the largest level as soon as possible Trying for the fastest growth comes first because of the winner takes all economics. Uber took 14 years to achieve profits. Amazon deliberately deferred full year profit for 14 years. They were trying to win an incredibly large (probably so large nobody really knew the ceiling) market. They were not trying to build a single car taxi service or a local bookstore and be profitable immediately and worry about growth later. Businesses with no prospect for significant growth need to work on those profits first. But of course, in those examples, they may later be vulnerable to disruption, without really understanding the economic forces and changes happening until it's too late.

@1p9 The finance primer on what profit is was pretty condescending and utterly unnecessary. It should just be a given that we as intelligent adults understand what profit is and what inflation is.

Nothing you said was wrong except that employees care about growth over profitability.
Wrong. You think you are getting bonuses if not profitable? Raises? Keep your job?

If not profitable at an established company then you aren’t getting those things.

If an established company is growing but u profitable. Guess what is likely to happen… same thing.

I’d prefer both profitability and profitable growth. Even profitability and short term unprofitable growth. But if I have to choose between them (for a 3 billion dollar 50 year old company) I’m choosing profitability first both as an employee or as an owner.

Profit = Revenues - Expenses.

Revenues have been flat for 15 years, while Expenses have increased with inflation. Therefore, in order to maintain Profit, SAS has quite sensibly reduced Expenses.

It is to SAS owners’ great credit that they are not motivated by greed. They are clearly not trying to maximize Profit. Anyone with that goal would have conducted a mass layoff.

Instead, SAS owners have reduced Expenses gradually, while maintaining Profit. They have been as gentle as they can, given the situation.

But all this discussion of Profit does not matter, except to Owners. Employees must be concerned about Growth.

Specifically, employees must should be concerned whether Growth keeps up with Expenses — i.e. with inflation.

Inflation is ~3% annually. If SAS does not grow at that rate, employees face layoffs.

@1dx I agree. If you ask any 3 billion dollar company to choose between growth and steady profitability what do you think they are going to choose…

Unless it is some unicorn startup they are going to choose steady profitability all day every day.

No! What’s important is that secret love children have special jobs in perpetuity. They increase revenues and add value far beyond their costs.

ownership should care about profitability.

everyone else should care about growth and profits. much easier to have career growth (and fewer layoffs)

@1c1 That isn’t the big question. The big question is always…. Are we profitable year in year out? If so wtf cares how long things have been flat. Well I mean leadership should care in that growth is typically (not always) preferred. But for established company it isn’t more important than profitability.

"What impact on revenue will the evaporation of SAS9 have?*

Assuming all SAS9 completely disappeared today and all was reinvested in Viya the revenue would be unchanged. If not all SAS9 sites reinvested in Viya, the revenue would be less.

“But expenses rise with inflation. Therefore flat revenues require layoffs to achieve profits.”

OK, sure, but the big question that nobody is asking or answering is exactly how long have revenues been flat?

"But expenses rise with inflation. Therefore flat revenues require layoffs to achieve profits."

Revenue has been flat since Viya became a thing. Layoffs, reductions, incentive reductions - whatever you want to call it - have been an ongoing thing since Viya. That begs a question. What impact on revenue will the evaporation of SAS9 have?

@1b7 😂

@184 If flat revenues equalled flat expenses, SAS could maintain flat headcount.

But expenses rise with inflation. Therefore flat revenues require layoffs to achieve profits.

Working for a profitable company is indeed fine -- just as long as you aren't one of the people laid off to achieve that profit.

@170 That isn’t the question. The important question is whether our product portfolio allows us to operate a profitable company. As long as it does we are good.

@170 don’t forget inflation

Some will use Viya; some won’t.

The question is: can Viya earn enough to compensate for declining SAS9 revenues PLUS inflation?

After 10 years, it has not.

@14w Not even close to what was said, Drama much?

If you choose to use it you will stay current with a few options balancing latest and greatest with stability. All of them keeping up with security patches…

“No longer an option (good thing) for Viya customers. You can’t get all that far behind due to number of supported LTS releases.”

So, you WILL use it and you WILL upgrade?

@14g

“Baaahhh!”, you say! The Art Department, which is safe, will deliver the 10x growth!

flat in revenue, BUT the % of DEI staff are growing......that's a big win! Eventually these DEI staff will 10X SAS revenue!

@12x No longer an option (good thing) for Viya customers. You can’t get all that far behind due to number of supported LTS releases.

@102 FWIW, the upgrade lag among customers predated Viya by quite a bit. Even when SAS was releasing annually or semi-annually it was common for me to find customers who were 3+ releases behind. In their defense, validating a new release is a time- and labor-intensive chore. All of this made me realize a monthly release schedule is far more attuned to new sales than to retention. But I’m getting off-topic now.