There was no clear messaging as to the “why” of the China office closure. Anyone have insight? Clearly it’s not to bring jobs to back US as replacement hiring has been happening Glasgow since summer.
I wonder if SAS is chasing federal projects that have stated or implied requirements that development not occur there?
No issue with journalists mu---ring Saudis however. #saslife
“a month's pay for each year of service”
Wow, can I have that too?
https://www.firstpost.com/tech/us-software-firm-sas-exits-china-with-a-months-pay-for-each-year-of-service-to-400-employees-ws-e-13948561.html
@1jc If, as you say, the existence of a Beijing SAS office exposes the source code to theft by the CCP, what do you view as the justification for opening the office in the first place? The CCP has been around for far longer than SAS.
@1sc If you want a definitive yes or no answer you are clearly not in the right place.
If you work at SAS ask there.
If not the try calling the Hong Kong office and you’ll have your answer.
Hong Kong is not detached from mainland China, so it is not clear what "no it’s just mainland China that’s closed" means. Yes, some parts of Hong Kong are islands, but also some parts of Hong Kong are part of the mainland peninsula. So the first part of the sentence suggests that the Hong Kong office is not closed while the second part of the sentence suggests that the Hong Kong office is closed.
In a single word, is the Hong Kong office closed please?
@1k9 no it’s just mainland China that’s closed
...anybody??
Is the office in Hong Kong also now closed?
To answer the original question - an office in China means that the CCP can steal source code easily. Closing the Beijing office helps protect company assets.
Your head is humming and it won’t go, in case you don’t know. The piper’s calling you to join him.
Dear lady can you hear the wind blow, and did you know. Your stairway lies on the whispering wind?
Maybe the answer to the "why" question is related which products are being developed in China.
@rr yes, KVUE declined by half, and SAS can follow a similar path: IPO, sell 100% of shares, watch the price decline, followed by acquisition.
JNJ IPO’d KVUE because that got them their best price. They had no higher private offer. SAS is in the same position.
@r3 Kenvue also lost around HALF of its entire valuation leading up to the buyout. It’s going for CHEAP. In case y’all were wondering why the current administration put out warnings about Kenvue’s flagship product, in direct contradiction to mounds and mounds of actual clinical data, driving down its value. It’s always about the grift, and half of you shrug and vote for these corrupt amoral monsters anyway.
@r0 Correct: Kenvue is stable, while SAS is declining. Still, an IPO could work similarly.
One difference might be in the final buyer: more likely to be private equity than an industry player.
Starbucks was undercut by homegrown competitors at a time when consumers have grown much more price sensitive
Kenvue was a spin off from J&J so a separate entity could focus on "consumer health". Consumer products also have "durable" demand in all conditions and aren't disrupted by open source, SaaS, AI, etc.
Legacy software products do not have the same "durability" unfortunately. They are tied to a user base that is retiring and very slow enterprise migrations, but the trend is clear.
Starbucks just divested most of its business in China.
We are witnessing the world’s two largest economies decoupling.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/03/business/starbucks-to-sell-control-of-china-business
People in their right minds tend to go based on data not emotions.
This is NOT TRUE. It’s NOT. It’s NOT. It’s NOT! Aaaaagggghhhhh! You are so infuriating!
@n0 you have a lot of questions you don’t know the answer to for someone so adamant that no one in their right mind would invest.
People in their right minds tend to go based on data not emotions.
@n0 KenVue is not growing either, but they just got acquired for $40B.
People think you can’t IPO without growth, but KVUE did. They became an independent, listed stock for a couple of years. Now they’ve been acquired.
There is no reason SAS can’t follow the same path.
@kj Who in their right mind would invest in SAS stock!? Are there any products bringing in earnings more than 5% year over year? Lol, are any even growing revenue that much?
Those salaries were needed to fund the Art Department, which is safe.
We're going public. We should all start getting used to the fact that we will not know all things, all the time, anymore. The big-wigs have decided we aren't privy to information anymore. This isn't the same SAS anymore. We're slowly turning into a shallow, hull of a tech company who's only #1 focus is profits. The company JHG built doesn't exist anymore. Buckle up for the ride!
@h5 Grow up. Not everything is about DEI. And your statement is an oxymoron. China/Chinese are also included in making up a diverse workforce. They are also considered minorities. But I guess because their skin isn't "black or brown" you don't consider them a threat.
not diverse enough for SAS........china doesn't allow forced diversity
china has always had significant corruption around all western companies......the behavior between SAS China and it's partners and clients are loaded, loaded with fraud
@bw ??
So in your esteemed opinion the Chinese decided to shut SAS out of China?
Riiight…
@am haha, dream on! Microsoft would have zero interest in SAS.
The Chinese are smart enough to realise that SAS is relic from a bygone era and has no role to play in a modern economy, so there is no revenue coming from China.
BO-M China...and that is all.
@OP which office closed, all? There’s large QA presence in Beijing and their work quality and ethic is excellent.
@ap You nailed it. Other regional office closures always came with reasons internally. Those reasons may or may not have been HR BS.
This time zero reason given. There is a reason for that.
This is not for you to know.
Probably a pending sale to a company that requires it, ie. Microsoft.
That should be "journalist-mu---ring Saudis" ... not "journalists mu---ring Saudis".
The cause may be a combination of industry-wide and SAS-specific reasons.
IBM, Microsoft, and other tech companies have recently reduced their presence in China. Salaries and other costs there have increased. So have government regulations. So have US-China tensions, a business risk for the future.
SAS must cut costs to offset its declining revenues. It is sad, but SAS may have identified a logical place to cut.