I only see failures in adapting to new circumstances, even sometimes in recognizing there are new circumstances.
82 replies (most recent on top)
Eliminating “loser products” and associated staff will not stop the decline, but will indeed slow it.
However, in the recent Retail layoff, SAS did not take @6yin+1tzt7zME’s advice to lay off all associated staff. Indian staff were retained. Marketing staff were retained.
SAS management is trying to minimize layoffs — out of loyalty to the employees, the company, its image — or all three. Any other management would make harsher cuts.
Current management is clearly not greedy, not trying to maximize profits. They may be laying off just enough to ensure profitability.
"Way better than a steady drip of merely laying off people. "
A friendly reminder from SAS Management - We are doing great, and the sales pipeline is strong. If you're laid off, it was your fault.
Yes. Here is one way to slow the decline.
Put all the staff associated. with loser product(s)s into a building. Sell the building, headcount, and the product(s).
A single transaction sheds:
- Unneeded staff
- Unneeded building
- Unneeded product(s).
Way better than a steady drip of merely laying off people. More importantly it sends a message that not generating revenue is NOT acceptable.
@5ymi+1tzt7zME makes a strong argument. If there were offers of $5B, we would not know. If there was an offer of $15B, the whole world would know.
"Broadcom was the first flirtation of a sale..."
For a company this old, this was probably not the first sales discussion.
This may be the first discussion we've been made aware of for awhile though.
We could not possibly know whether other discussions are occurring. In traditional SAS fashion, everyone is kept in the dark.
What buyers, what bidders, SAS isn't for sale! (tm)
Of course only the owners would know if there are nibbles or serious inquiries. If there were a lot of interest, though, it's seems in the company's interest to have the large interest be known. When there is an auction for something, it's better for sellers if there are lot of bidders, and when it's known that there are many bidders. If there is very little interest, or interest at very low valuations, it seems better that it's kept quiet.
@5hbo+1tzt7zME This is painful.
I have nothing to tell. I’m not JG.
Whoever said “There has been no interest. Not even a nibble” doesn’t have the first fu--ing clue. Unless that was JG talking businesss on thelayoff.com.
My point remains people constantly talk like they know things that they do not know.
This is the same phenomenon causing our politics and media to be such a sh-tshow. People just make sh-t up and if you say it enough it becomes true.
Suitors since Broadcom? Do tell.
“I doubt anyone on here is stating anything as a "fact". “
Seriously? How about the following which started this particular conversation?
“ Broadcom was the first flirtation of a sale. That was a long time ago and there has been no interest since. Not even a nibble.”.
Can you honestly say that entire thing is presented as an opinion?
I can list countless examples which are expressed as concretely as that.
Communication is a receiver phenomenon. I doubt anyone on here is stating anything as a "fact". I believe they are stating their opinions, which you to interpret as "facts". It is also my opinion that you are someone who likes to fight, and this is an avenue for you to indulge in that proclivity.
@4anu+1tzt7zME
“ So, @4cdq+1tzt7zME what's your point of view? How about you present a convincing argument that SAS is not in a dire situation?”
Who ever said I don’t think SAS is in trouble? I certainly haven’t. That is you superimposing what you want to think instead of what has actually been said.
I can’t make any good cases either way because I don’t have all the information and I’m not in the C suite. With it being a private company that leaves few credible sources of information. I’m quite positive I’m not going to find any information here which I can take to the bank. I don’t have a problem with guesswork that is laid out as such.
I do have a problem with people stating things they can’t possibly know as facts.
With that said I do agree SAS is likely in trouble. But the degree is probably somewhere in between dire and “all is well”.
@4cdq+1tzt7zME just because it's an anonymous internet site does not mean that many posts here are not well informed.
Anyone who can't see that SAS is in a severe and probably terminal decline, is quite frankly ill informed of the internal problems at SAS, and/or the external competitive landscape.
So, @4cdq+1tzt7zME what's your point of view? How about you present a convincing argument that SAS is not in a dire situation?
No, I suspect you won't....because it's simply not possible to present such an argument.
“ as has been very convincingly articulated by many well informed folk on this site.”
I find it tragic that people consider an anonymous internet site as well informed folks.
I also find it tragic that you classify other opinions as SAS brainwashed…
Wow, this quite a bit of hostility on this thread!
I find it sad and tragic that people come to thelayoff.com to try to defend SAS and it's management. Why?
It's pretty obvious that SAS is a failing business. Maybe some employees in management still believe it has a future, but that's delusional. SAS's future is dire, as has been very convincingly articulated by many well informed folk on this site.
There is no way to arrest the decline of SAS’s core products, because they compete with freeware. Most features of SAS are in R, Python, Spark, et. al.
In theory, a visionary turnaround expert could cut costs and use the savings to innovate new products. Steve Jobs rescued Apple in just that way.
But Steve Jobs laid off 30% of Apple. Any turnaround expert would want to make similar deep cuts.
Current owners are loyal to their employees, and to the company they built. They will never approve such deep cuts. They’ll continue to make small cuts to ensure profitability. But they are clearly not trying to maximize profits.
In my time at SAS, many R&D managers were technically weak and hostile to new ideas. Projects were driven by politics. Innovation was bad for one’s career.
To arrest the decline requires both deep cuts and innovation. Both require wholesale management change. That will only happen after a sale.
Declining but profitable tech companies typically sell for two or three times annual sales — $5-10B in the case of SAS.
However, a buyer with that kind of money will not buy SAS for innovation. If they want innovation, they’ll invest their $5B in some hot AI startup instead.
The only likely buyers of SAS ate companies like Broadcom or private equity. Their business model is to maximize profits from declining revenue streams. They’ll make deep cuts, but innovation is not their goal.
Even if SAS IPOs, its eventual owner will be one of these companies.
So no, the decline will not be arrested under any likely owner.
In this situation, all you can do is to perform an honest day’s work, and prepare yourself for change.
No, I am Spartacus!
@3ufu+1tzt7zME legal department? Just a couple posts ago you said I was high level management.
Either way. Wrong and wrong. I have no reason to lie and I don’t make sh-t up.
You take other people having opinions and calling out your BS facts as taunts. “High and mighty” is a taunt, look in the mirror.
I'd be wrong regardless of whatever name I dropped, even if I were right.
Frankly, your taunts strike me as someone in the Legal department seeking to catch others "offsides".
@2jpl+1tzt7zME “ I won't identify who specifically”
You couldn’t if you tried. But now this is like watching a really bad soap opera and ai want to hear who specifically you think you can identify,
Go on. Name a name, And state it as a fact. That makes it more right.
“No apology is forthcoming.”
Wow I’m shocked.
“because you believe ex-employees posting on an anonymous site care whether you view them as credible or not”
Umm you do realize what anonymous means. No idea whether someone is ex-employee or not. And who gives a sh-t other than that it gives you even less credibility on knowing the executive level in ear workings.
And who says I care what you think. Do you actually think I do?
“ High and mighty" because you believe ex-employees posting on an anonymous site care about your participation or not (...I'm out).”
Again. Anonymous. You only know whether you are an ex-employee.
And again who says I care what you think of my participation. I certainly never said that. Could this be you once again stating something you can’t possibly know as fact? Yes.
“ I'm going to assume you're a member of SAS management who likes to pretend they are one of the "regular people". I won't identify who specifically. Go ahead, blast me for all my false assumptions and nonsense. It so predictable.”
Well at least you stated that as an assumption rather than a fact. that is progress.
Completed false assumption but you can’t ve right all the time (or any of the time).
Wrong on all counts. it is so predictable.
"I stopped reading after that sentence as it lost credibility."
"Might be right but when you blast guesswork as facts I’m out."
"If 'high and mighty' means calling BS on people who flat out make sh-t up and state it as fact then color me 'high and mighty'."
No apology is forthcoming.
"High and mighty" because you believe ex-employees posting on an anonymous site care whether you view them as credible or not. "High and mighty" because you believe ex-employees posting on an anonymous site care about your participation or not (...I'm out).
I'm going to assume you're a member of SAS management who likes to pretend they are one of the "regular people". I won't identify who specifically. Go ahead, blast me for all my false assumptions and nonsense. It so predictable.
"No one is willing to do what's clearly necessary for the company to limp along for a few more years. The remaining lifetime of this company is hovering at 3 to 5 years at best."
No, my former manager said that SAS will be around another 40 years, and they've been promoted at least once since...
The number of suitors to buy SAS since Broadcom's attempt to buy SAS is NOT relevant.
What is relevant and revealing??? If there was perceived value for the cost to buy SAS, that ship would have already sailed.
@1ajy+1tzt7zME Don’t bother. Even though they know what you said is true they will still argue and pretend otherwise.
@1xbu+1tzt7zME If “high and mighty” means calling BS on people who flat out make sh-t up and state it as fact then color me high and mighty.
The thing I called BS on was “ Broadcom was the first flirtation of a sale. That was a long time ago and there has been no interest since. Not even a nibble.”.
If you think that the poster was JG, BH, DD or JU and that they chose to disclose the interest levels of potential buyers via an anonymous post on the layoff.com then more power to you. Stick to your g-ns.
If you don’t believe that is likely to be true then I accept your apology.
"Side note unrelated to the main point: Edward Smith chose to run his vessel full speed at night through iceberg-infested waters in an attempt to set a record. He was a not-so-good captain who went down with his ship."
I believe he was warned, too, but ignored the warning and kept on due to his arrogance.
"What, me worry"?
"I stopped reading after that sentence as it lost credibility."
"Might be right but when you blast guesswork as facts I’m out."
Well aren't you high and mighty?
“ The people in charge of this company are delusional. All they care about is themselves and that their paychecks keep coming every month.”
Like all the anonymous whiners on here are different? They can have the courage of their convictions and speak up. Or leave for greener pastures.
But they don’t. Why? Because “All they care about is themselves and that their paychecks keep coming every month”
@1dkp+1tzt7zME Holy sh-t.
What exactly did you fix? I can’t wait to hear.
Read the thing you fixed again and loo at punctuation.
Then come back and enlighten me on what you “fixed”. Fix your reading comprehension.
And for everyone downvoting the comment about layoffs impacting net profit/loss and not impacting 3 billion revenue… illuminate why you downvoted. I assume that means you disagree. I want to hear your understanding of corporate accounting.
"every employee over age 60 should be involuntarily retired and paid out their severance"
That sure sounds like a way to get multiple age-discrimination suits going, possibly at the class-action level.
“They have to keep doing layoffs in order to keep the $3B revenue with no growth. “
Not how that works. Layoffs don’t impact the 3 billion revenue (growth or no growth).
Layoffs impact net profits or net losses.
"Let me repeat. 3 billion. Profitable."
Let me repeat. 3 billion. GROSS revenue.
Fixed it.
There is no hope. None left at all. No one is willing to make the drastic changes that are necessary to keep the company alive in a much more streamlined condition.
The so-called leadership is just too entrenched. All the same people who have failed for decades to run this company like a business are still in charge of it. Too many failures have compounded for way too long. Too many people have been allowed to continue drawing huge salaries despite being failures in their roles. There has been far too little accountability for these people for far too long.
No one is willing to do what's clearly necessary for the company to limp along for a few more years. The remaining lifetime of this company is hovering at 3 to 5 years at best. And that's only because it will take that long for banks and government agencies and pharmaceutical companies to start weaning themselves off of their dependence on SAS software.
No one is brave enough to tell the emperor he has no clothes on.
Headcount should be drastically reduced immediately. Every employee over the age of 50 should be given an opportunity for a generous VRBP and every employee over age 60 should be involuntarily retired and paid out their severance. The latter is very long overdue. Until at least the latter happens, SAS will continue to tread water, getting weaker, less agile and less productive as time passes.
All non-US and non-HQ locations should be shut down and all duplicate staff who produce nothing let go. The ranks are bloated with too many people who spend all their time every day in pointless meetings.
The product portfolio should be cut by 85% with only the most profitable products and services remaining. This would reduce so much waste and allow SAS to focus on only things that still generate revenue.
No new products or services should be created from here on out. All efforts should go into improving the few revenue generating products and services that remain after the losers are dropped.
The size of Cary HQ should be halved and the unused portion sold off for commercial development. At the very least, the underused parts of the campus since Covid should have been used for a cooperative incubator program created in partnership with local universities or even just with NC State. That could have created a useful feeder situation for young, bright graduates to stream into SAS, injecting energy and vitality and new ideas into this slowly dying behemoth.
I'm sure I could think of more places to cut fat. But it's irrelevant because none of it will ever happen. The people in charge of this company are delusional. All they care about is themselves and that their paychecks keep coming every month. The leadership here has never had adequate foresight and can't bear to face the truth of how bad things have really become.
This slow and painful death is anything but kind and merciful as many people keep saying it is. It's a long, drawn out and painful death by 10,000 cuts over the past 10 years.
"a steady 3 billion profitable revenue stream regardless of whether there is no growth."
They have to keep doing layoffs in order to keep the $3B revenue with no growth. It is not sustainable to keep laying offs, and cut out other things/benefits in order to make up for the shortfalls of new revenue to keep the $3B revenue intact.
At some point things will just head south quickly if they continue to not do anything smart to improve the revenue growth. A company with no prospect for future growth is not going to survive in the long term.
Yes, the captain will go down with the ship at some point and it is his honor to do so for himself. Will you hang on till the end and go down with it? For some, it's ok, for others it's not.
A good captain will go down with his ship. Coincidence that anyone is thinking of the Titanic?
Side note unrelated to the main point: Edward Smith chose to run his vessel full speed at night through iceberg-infested waters in an attempt to set a record. He was a not-so-good captain who went down with his ship.
How much is the asking price for the company? 40B? And if revenue is 3B a year, how big are the profits on that? Are we talking a return higher than my checking account interest rate?
I think we are just in for a long slow decline, sliding into the warm bath and waiting for the end of one individual for the fire sale.
There is massive value, but it’s also in massive decline. For the question, to reverse it, you need to invest in the relatively promising areas and in new possibilities that offset the declining areas. Take the existing applications and platforms with a large user base, and be sure they work well with new technologies and platforms not only in the SAS proprietary stack. When Linux, Apple, Google built the new big tech platforms, Microsoft no longer had the dominant OS, but still executed “coopetition” and “embrace and extend” successfully.
“Nothing of any value ”
I guess value is in the eye of the beholder.
I mean I see value in a steady 3 billion profitable revenue stream regardless of whether there is no growth.
Let me repeat. 3 billion. Profitable.
I’m sure you would turn it down if offered to you since it has no value
“Broadcom was the first flirtation of a sale. That was a long time ago and there has been no interest since. Not even a nibble.”
Finally someone who from the C suite who has the really skinny on behind the scenes happenings.
Or more likely someone with no actual knowledge of whether there has been interest. Whether there has been nibbles. Whether there has even been fishing.
I stopped reading after that sentence as it lost credibility.
Might be right but when you blast guesswork as facts I’m out.