https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thorkiljohansen_sas-sasreplacement-altair-activity-7282715004183695361-7bH_?utm_medium=ios_app&utm_source=social_share_sheet&utm_campaign=copy_link
Responses from BH and others
36 replies (most recent on top)
“ I thought so.”
Well it wasn’t much of a thought. But you have to start small and keep repeating the process. It will change your life for the better.
"I've got a secret, and I'm not telling..."
I thought so.
@2bw+1jhy0phxh It is indeed an unverified (by you) opinion. Anonymous unverified should be met with skeptisism regardless of whether you agree or disagree.
I won’t be divulging said locations as that is entirely inappropriate for an anonymous public site.
“ There is plenty of data internally if you know where to look."
Then tell the folks on this forum, who still work there, where they can find it. Otherwise, it's just another unverified opinion.
There's no doubt that there are reasons that SAS would be attractive to a buyer at the right price.
There is also little doubt to those of us who a realists, that most employees will suffer rather than benefit from a sale, because all evidence from previous sales of companies with negative growth indicate that mass layoffs are inevitable. Heck, even massively profitable companies like Google and Meta are having layoffs, so what hope have SAS employees got? It's not looking good my friends.
@29f+1jhy0phxh Spot on
“ Yes, my observations are wrong, as always.”
Holy sh-t you are sensitive.
“ There is plenty of data internally if you know where to look.
There is a certain irony to your rambling about no backing data when you conclude your comments with something about it smelling funny.
Smelling funny is not data either.”
Above Is what I said that you were responding to. Tell me exactly what I said that was wrong or was somehow some cutting as--ult on you.
There is data Internally.
I did find it ironic.
I feel like you are always attacking me. I’m wrong again as usual.
See how that sounded? And no it is not somehow different.
Yes, my observations are wrong, as always.
@25a+1jhy0phxh There is plenty of data internally if you know where to look.
There is a certain irony to your rambling about no backing data when you conclude your comments with something about it smelling funny.
Smelling funny is not data either.
With regards to "cooking the books" and such, notice how the reporting language is fuzzy? It's phrased with 'growth' and 'profitable', but no firm numbers. No firm accounting of where the numbers come from, and no expenses. Only one side of the balance sheet is presented.
Is it reasonable for a company to have 40+ years of annual growth? If we were to randomly sample a bunch of listed Wall Street companies, would we find any with 40+ years of annual growth? I find the language bombastic and suspect. Companies, and people, have up years and down years. Maybe this company is a true 'unicorn', but I doubt it; to me, the financial reporting smells funny.
I have zero expertise in commercial real estate law, but am guessing that given Covid restrictions/allowances, rent could be reduced on the SAS buildings for 2020/2021 because there was very little to no occupancy due to most employees WFH’n. Could be wrong, yet I doubt this would raise any flags with the SEC, and in fact there might even be an accommodation for it. Commercial real estate has also been soft in the years recovering since 2020, so “fair market rent” could be considered reasonably lower given the number of empty office complexes around the Triangle.
So no cooking the books, just doing what is legal and possibly saving a lot of people’s jobs.
I doubt very much that JG would do anything illegal. He’s not a dishonest person, and he has no motive.
But private companies aren’t required to meet the same standards as public ones. They can do perfectly legal accounting that would not pass muster with the SEC.
That probably happened, and it’s probably why it has taken four years for SAS to become “IPO-ready”.
Wow. Now we are talking about JG defrauding, cooking the books, illegal and immoral activities. Wow.
@1zt+1jhy0phxh No. SAS has made no decision to IPO. Until they do, they aren't required to publish profit numbers.
But it's a fair bet that interested private buyers have seen those numbers.
@1z3+1jhy0phxh "When preparing for an IPO or sale, profitability is highly marketable. So profitability will be maintained, and well advertised. See BH's recent comments."
Are you seeing any advertised profit numbers?
There are many ways SAS could fudge the numbers. But for an IPO, the SEC requires three years of audited financial statements. Don't think they'll fudge much right now.
… yet JG could prop up the “profitability” of SAS by reducing the rents paid to his real estate company for the campus buildings. Doubtful this would go on for years and years, but could be done in the short term to keep from doing massive layoffs or a sale.
We know that SAS is profitable, for two reasons:
- The SAS CEO has stated in the past that he will not run his company without a profit. And why would he? He doesn't have to; there's still plenty of fat to cut.
- When preparing for an IPO or sale, profitability is highly marketable. So profitability will be maintained, and well advertised. See BH's recent comments.
We don't know the profit margin, but real revenues (inflation-adjusted) have declined ~25% over the past decade, while headcount has only declined by ~20%. So either SAS needs more layoffs, or its profit margin has declined -- or both.
Historically, SAS has avoided mass layoffs. They may be laying off just enough to maintain profitability.
I think that profit is non-public information. Maybe I am wrong.
@1yd+1jhy0phxh "Not to desired levels. But yes."
Why do you say yes - do you have a link to the profit number? (That is a question, not a sarcastic comment.)
@1ys+1jhy0phxh "Even with a 3% to 4% profitability"
Same question about those numbers. Why not 0.5% or less?
@1ys+1jhy0phxh Don’t be peeing on the doom and groom parade
Even with a 3% to 4% profitability, the founders are reaping $100M in 2024 with very little risk and no need to “worry bout a thing”. No board or shareholders to answer to, no equity to distribute to employees, basically control everything with more accumulated wealth than the rest of us could even imagine — the ultimate catbird’s seat. Unless the lineage commit some major fu-k up, the heirs and their great grandkids are already well funded.
“ Profitable in 2024?”
Not to desired levels. But yes.
We are on the same page. I’m not trying to erase the less than optimal state of revenue growth. But so many on here paint the bleakest of pictures for a 3 billion, no debt company.
@1wa+1jhy0phxh I’m not trying to emphasize the negative. A decline is a decline, that’s all. From an employee’s viewpoint, a decline in real (inflation-adjusted) revenues is why we get layoffs. And a private buyer will adjust their price based on the rate of decline.
To prepare for an IPO, BH is correctly emphasizing the positive. Nominal (not inflation-adjusted) revenues have been steady at 3 billion. And the company is “profitable, with no debt.”
This is indeed a very marketable proposition. Some people on this site have said that SAS can’t, or won’t, IPO. But they can IPO those numbers any old time they want.
3 billion,profitable, no debt.
You all make it sound like a negative.
All but a tiny percentage of companies would ki-l for that.
BH is doing his job. SAS is a true unicorn.
As to the numbers, it depends on which starting year you pick. To simplify: SAS revenues were about $3B in 2023. They were about $3B in 2013. Adjusted for inflation, that’s almost a 25% decline.
Looking at it the other way, $3B in 2013 is equivalent to about $4B in 2023 — about 33% less.
Again, this is simplifying. And these are numbers published by SAS, according to “management reports” — not according to GAAP. These are just ballpark numbers.
The important point is that revenues are declining relative to inflation — relative to the cost of salaries, benefits, utilities, etc. — that is, relative to the cost of running the business.
In an IPO, these flat-but-steady revenues will be seen as positive. In a private sale, the buyer will ask: how fast are they declining?
BH- "Today, we are a profitable $3B pure Data and AI software company with ZERO debt. In Venture Capital speak, that is a true unicorn. "
How many years have they been a $3B a year company now? At least 4-5 if not more that I am aware of. Just taking inflation into account they're likely down $500B+ in revenue.
We'll never really know I guess unless the actual numbers become public at some point.
@e3+1jhy0phxh Without disagreeing, here’s a slightly different explanation.
The Big Guy was more mistaken than arrogant. He trusted the Big German. It is common, and sensible, among people in their 70s, to find a younger person to trust.
Agreed: What happened is not solely the Big German’s fault. He was arrogant, and thought he knew more than he did. But he worked hard, in the direction the Big Guy approved.
The Big Guy did put all his eggs in the Viya basket. But he has not continued that mistake. He has realized that his bet failed, so he is selling his company.
Agreed: This is deeply sad for all of us who loved the company and gave it our careers. But we can’t blame BH or JC or any of the Executive Team for doing what they’re paid to do. They are being paid to sell the company.
It's very difficult to not "Like" his comment and reply "but JG claims that SAS has never had a layoff!"
You can't blame BH for saying what JG wants to hear. He-l, if I was getting paid as much as he probably is, I would parrot the big guy's party line until my a-s was shown the door like so many of his both more- and less-competent predecessors. Nor can you solely blame the big German for the SAS downfall. The big guy refuses to admit he was wrong and continues to put all of his proverbial eggs in the Viya basket. Blame the big guy. He did a spectacular job of building SAS, and sadly through his arrogance, a spectacular job of destroying the company that so many of us loved and devoted our careers.
The response that spoke to me most was from the guy who got laid off six months before retirement. He disagreed with BH’s statement that Dr. G. “continues to be a pioneer in how to treat employees.”
“I learned a lot from Jim Goodnight, unfortunately my final lesson from his HR was how not to treat people…”
I was treated similarly. Many were treated worse, but sign NDAs so can’t talk about it. Others complain anonymously on sites like this one. This guy is the first I’ve seen complain under his own name.
SAS retirement is $100 for every year of service, plus a few perks. HR could have easily given him that, and prevented his negative comments.
Read:
The Power Broker - Robert Moses and the Fall of New York.
I'll summarize it for you - Moses built some roads. They were a great success at first, but society changed and had other needs. Nevermind that. Moses, now in power, insisted on building more roads regardless of mass transit and the needs of most commuters. New York remained stuck in gridlock. Moses didn't care. Let them sit in traffic. We'll build another road to fix it.
Compare and contrast.
Well, this post is morbid
BH's response was a poor move on his part. He must not have seen the Steve Jobs video. Which makes it no surprise (IMHO) that the first reply to him was to hand him his a-s for not doing his homework and reading the room.
Customers want solutions not tech buzzwords