Thread regarding VMware layoffs

Broadcom was trying to acquire SAS

This is real leadership. Broadcom was in talks to acquire SAS last year and once their CEO leaned of the bloodbath that would take place with employees losing their jobs, he called the deal off and said “SAS is not for sale”. SAS has a great culture and their CEO wasn’t going to let Broadcom ruin it. You can Google the various articles. It’s too late for us either way, if the deal didn’t happen no way we could operate as is.

by
| 1891 views | | 8 replies (last June 22, 2022) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1hm1igdP

8 replies (most recent on top)

That SAS deal was a premature ej--------n…. They were desperate to to a deal…

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ggc+1hm1igdP

It’s been mentioned a few times here, but I’ll say again to clarify: VMware management had nothing to do with this deal, and they had no “vote” in it. Dell + Silverlake own more than 50% of the VMW shares. So if they want this deal, there is literally nothing that any of VMW’s 38k employees can do about it.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @pcc+1hm1igdP

MD could not pass up the offer as he has debt to pay down from his black eye with the EMC acquisition.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zya+1hm1igdP

@rjy+1hm1igdP in terms of an aquisition, VMware is a company controlled by Michael Dell and a few people at Silver Lake. They know it vmware will be milked because they themselves are the experts of that particular private equity playbook. See https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/silver-lakes-backing-dealmaking-ceos-pays-off-2022-05-26/

Those few people could have done what SAS did, but chose not to because they are totally fine with the outcome.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gpc+1hm1igdP

Do you think if Broadcom said they would invest and grow SAS, that a deal would be done? YES, a deal would’ve been done. They were in talks to sell the company and then decided to NOT once they learned more about Broadcom plans. Clearly a difference between a publicly traded company and a private one, but at the same time, NOT every company that Broadcom reaches out to turns into a deal. The Board could reject the offer, and say they company can do fine on their own. Just because you are publicly traded doesn’t mean you have to sell. Clearly VM Management and Board didn’t believe we could get the stock to a higher price, so they did sell. Which was the right call if they didn’t believe we could do better.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gec+1hm1igdP

You are comparing apples and oranges.
SAS is a PRIVATELY held company, and is not publicly traded. its Founders still control it. There you can say "no I don't want to sell" because you do not have the publicly traded stock and the SEC rules for public companies plus the board/execs legally bound fiduciary responsibilities to public stock holders.

Not even worth comparing, useless post.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @rjy+1hm1igdP

Don’t forget Silver Lake as part of the dynamic duo

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @krl+1hm1igdP

I mean the difference would be that VMware can't say no considering Dell is the one who holds full power.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @pom+1hm1igdP

Post a reply

: