https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sas_our-executive-team-visited-nasdaq-and-nyse-activity-7282758011624816640-elB5?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
69 replies (most recent on top)
I stated, multiple times, C-level planning the IPO / sale should hurry up before the economic downturn. Now, it’s too late.
Think there’s going to be a 2025 IPO? A 2026 IPO? A sale?
More likely, the company will just close down as social order collapses and hoarding begins.
All three points confirmed. Markets have dropped significantly. CFO gone. Tariffs raise prices and are causing secondary effects on inflation. IPO/sale delayed. Protests increasing. Tariff fears driving purchases is close enough to hoarding. Outlook is not good. If things continue on this trajectory, social order issues are not far behind.
@8jw+1jh3gkdh8 We agree that the owners are being kind to employees. I may have worded my post poorly.
The point I tried to make is that this could go either way. Certainly, at the moment, most M&A and IPOs are on hold. If SAS believes the market will be higher next year, they could reasonably decide to wait.
On the other hand, the market is near an all-time high, we are overdue for a recession, and SAS is a declining asset. If SAS believes the market will be lower next year, they could reasonably decide to sell.
All of SAS’ public actions suggest that a decision to sell has been made; it is just a question of timing. They may wait a year, or two. Given the owners’ ages, I doubt they’ll wait much longer.
Market uncertainty doesn't stop M&A and IPOs; it just reduces their price
Well, no. Market uncertainty, environment, and downturn certainly can affect timing and decision to execute on an IPO or sale. It doesn’t just reduce the price.
Expect a holding pattern for now:
https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/ma-still-on-hold-amid-policy-uncertainty
Though mergers and acquisitions were expected to roar back in 2025 thanks to the new administration, uncertainty around Washington policy appears to be holding back new deals. (March 7, 2025)
None of that means the company won’t hold steady and continue to prepare for a sale or IPO. Thankfully, in the meantime, the owners are not being reactionary and are being kind to employees.
The goal of “IPO readiness” accomplishes multiple objectives:
- It provides three years of audited financial statements, to meet SEC requirements if SAS decides to IPO.
- Alternatively, audited financial statements also facilitate a private sale.
- Public announcements of “IPO readiness” advertise that the company is in fact for sale.
I don't see how creating subsidiaries for JMP and the jets facilitates an IPO. These seem designed more to please a private buyer, who can thus easily sell those parts if they are not wanted.
An IPO often brings a better price than a private sale. So it’s good business to pursue both options.
I do not hear any commitment to have an actual IPO. All references are to being stated as "IPO ready".
Market uncertainty doesn't stop M&A and IPOs; it just reduces their price.
SAS may decide that this is not a good year to do a deal. Or they may feel that the market is headed lower, and the best time to sell a declining asset is ASAP.
At this time, CoreWeave's IPO is still expected; but they are an AI company.
https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/best-stocks-ipo-this-year
What a goofball
Markets are crashing. Mergers and Acquisition environment is horrible.
Still singing the same tune?
Genesys filed to IPO a few months ago. They make software for call centers. They have an office in RTP; one or two SAS employees have moved there.
Genesys is roughly comparable to SAS. They have about 6,000 employees, with about $2B ARR. Unlike SAS, they took private equity, which valued them at about $20B.
Like SAS, their proposed IPO is all about AI. Filing to IPO doesn’t commit them to doing it in 2025, but it means they think they have a chance.
https://www.cmswire.com/contact-center/genesys-ipo-a-litmus-test-for-ais-future-in-cx/
"More likely, the company will just close down as social order collapses and hoarding begins."
Hello Whoopi. Keep your promise and leave. Safe one way travels!!!
What a goofball.
There is no need to bring in politics to analyze this situation.
BH has stated publicly that SAS will meet requirements for an IPO in 2Q 2025.
Allowing time for a road show, an IPO can hardly happen before Autumn. Legal matters could easily delay one until early 2026.
Over that timeframe, because of the market’s current high levels, there is certainly a risk of a correction, or even a recession,
SAS is running that risk. They may in fact have waited too late. But as long as the market stays up, they have a window of opportunity.
"More likely, the company will just close down as social order collapses and hoarding begins."
Deranged, MSNBC-watching Democrat alert!
I stated, multiple times, C-level planning the IPO / sale should hurry up before the economic downturn. Now, it’s too late.
Think there’s going to be a 2025 IPO? A 2026 IPO? A sale?
More likely, the company will just close down as social order collapses and hoarding begins.
Thank you for filling in an important piece of history regarding KG. I didn’t know him well and don’t recall him being very deep in the history of platform programming and product development at SAS. Didn’t he come from IT?
I vaguely remember the “flight of top internal talent to Cyber” and subsequent letdown that resulted in some solid folks leaving SAS altogether. The whole matrix management thing with S&S was silly. Hopefully things have improved since KG’s departure, yet it seems many long-term veteran Devs who were impacted have retired or left for greener pastures elsewhere.
To his credit, KG was trying to optimize resources in realizing that platform development did not require as many subsystem specialists as earlier times when MVA and TK infrastructure was rapidly evolving. Prior to his efforts there were quite a few folks “tending their own quiet garden” (a Photographer metaphor) and not developing the skills to debug and fix issues in the broader host and core supervisor code base. The problem was it was mostly the top Devs who could effectively work across a broader range of subsystems, complex TK extensions and related services. These likely grew sick of having to attend multiple SCRUM meetings per day and deal with clueless “HR managers” within the matrix system.
I don't really disagree with anything that you said, but here's my recollection:
KG formed Servers and Services (whatever it was originally called), then adopted matrix management to separate the technical objectives of his organization from the HR ones. The technical leaders were not constrained by having to deal with management fluff, and the managers lost any connection to the work their direct reports were doing and so were superfluous, except on an org chart. It should have been developer heaven. Then KG told a bunch of the highly-talented SAS veterans who were sorted into his organization in the Great ReOrg of 2018 (whenever it was), and who informed him that it wouldn't be as easy as he thought it would be, to STFU, then that he only wanted solutions, not problems.
This alienated a lot of those developers. So there was quite a flight from his organization to Cyber (and elsewhere in R&D), including some of the best developers SAS had at the time. Then Brian canceled Cyber, and all of those people had to find positions back in R&D. Some of them made it clear they wouldn't return to KG's organization.
So, while I don't disagree with you that the company could have hired talent into Cyber, that talent knew nothing about SAS. When the talent that knew anything about SAS (and LASR, and VA, and CAS, and Viya...) arrived, it was too little too late to make a difference because the product had already failed. Would Cyber have been a success if some of those highly-talented SAS veterans were moved to Cyber earlier, instead of allowing the internalized "we'll show R&D how its done" attitude that the Solutions inevitably adopt to create a barrier to "One SAS"? We will never know (but the answer is probably yes).
“…not realizing the talent depth and market resolve it takes to get next level and compete with the top incumbents and the faster growing relevant niched players. One could argue that many of the SAS product catalog outside the core V9 products fits this description.”
All of them do. They were all built as cheaply as possible, not wanting to pay or provide equity to attract top talent. Not coincidentally, most of them failed.
SAS was probably destined to be sold at about this time, given the age of the founders. An IPO may be the best route; or the IPO process may attract a private offer.
An IPO twenty years ago would have been different. An IPO with a successful Viya would have been different.
But you IPO the products you have, not the ones you want. SAS Executives are doing a reasonable job playing the hand they’ve been dealt.
“People seem to be able to get away with publicly voicing absolute BS with impunity!”
This site is a perfect example of tha
@1k9+1jh3gkdh8 … they were still so constrained by not being given the budget to hire top A-list Cyber Devs (a relatively rare talent — esp. 7-10 years ago) in order to build better/more/faster. Viya and related initiatives had lots of expensive HW thrown at it too.
SAS has a long history of launching internal initiatives (SPDS, TKTS, SAS Oil/Gas exploration, … and more I cannot recall) AND making relatively cheap acquisitions in order to “check boxes and appear more leading edge” while not realizing the talent depth and market resolve it takes to get next level and compete with the top incumbents and the faster growing relevant niched players. One could argue that many of the SAS product catalog outside the core V9 products fits this description.
It’s better to be truly great in 10 areas, with a view to adapting and growing with changes in overall computing trends, then attempting to build out 30 additional half-baked niche solutions that ultimately dilute brand perception. This modus operandi sure seems to fit the SAS of the past 25 years.
Yeah, no. Bryan is _likable_ but neither he nor his baby were "constrained from above". Cyber got first choice of the best hardware in R&D, and Dr. Goodnight's name opened every door for them. The only impediments to their success were "too long to market" and then "not compared to the alternatives".
“…is it realistic for a niche player like SAS, who recently acquired a fledgling synthetic data company, to compete at scale with these tech giants?”
No. And if you and I know it, Broadcom knows it. So does private equity, and any other private buyer of SAS.
The purchase of Hazy does not facilitate a private sale, but it does facilitate an IPO.
On “Taking Stock”, the SAS CMO mentioned AI multiple times. She did not mention Viya once.
Discussion moving to r/analytics sub-Reddit because r/sas is private and discussion here regarding company state with respect to layoffs is being suppressed.
https://reddit.com/r/analytics
As long as the markets stay up, SAS has a favorable window for an IPO…
Well, better hurry up before the AI bubble bursts.
“Don’t you think the central meaning of the earlier question was “what became of the SAS Cyber initiative?”
Oh, yeah, that. You’re right. Yeah, that was a failure.
Don’t you think the central meaning of the earlier question was “what became of the SAS Cyber initiative”?
Bryan is known and liked by many yet he is also a smart guy on the short leash of an aging founder. The same was true when he led Cyber. Bryan gave his all to make it a go but was constrained from above.
My first thought when seeing that video was that the host was a leader in lip botox.
“ the return of Bryan Harris. What exactly became of that?”
He’s still there and is calling the shots.
Based on a quick Internet search, it appears that Google and AWS have had significant synthetic data awareness and initiatives for several years now.
Given Google, AWS and other behemoth cloud players’ dominance in ML/AI for enterprise infrastructure and applications, is it realistic for a niche player like SAS, who recently acquired a fledgling synthetic data company, to compete at scale with these tech giants?
Ten years ago SAS targeted the cyber security analytics market with a relatively small acquisition that saw the return of Bryan Harris. What exactly became of that?
SAS may have bought enough AI to be a leader in one area: synthetic data. That is enough for any marketing person to generalize, positioning SAS as “a leader in AI”. That’s not a lie, just extremely positive spin.
To call SAS “a leader in data” is no lie either. Twenty years ago, we were “the” leader in data analysis. It’s still fair to call us “a” leader, without mentioning our declining market share. More positive spin.
“JC’s pitch is 20 years too late?”
The SAS Executive Team is being paid to prepare the company to IPO. They correctly saw "Taking Stock" as a marketing opportunity the NYSE provides to companies thinking of listing on their exchange.
JC did a good job of marketing what R&D has given her to market. This pitch will attract some investors. But this will not be the IPO we could have had 20 years ago.
“Those that are not in denial can see the handwriting on the wall.”
"I would think a video on the upcoming IPO of a leader in data and AI would generate more views!"
Sadly, there is a simple explanation. Few views = not much interest. Adding insult to injury, it is very possible that most of those few views are attributed to SAS leadership viewing their own content.
"company they want to see go up in smoke"
No one wants to see SAS goes up in smoke. It will be a sad day for all of us current and former employees to see that. Those that are not in denial can see the handwriting written on the wall and the possible future ending of SAS. In the mean time just pray for your blessings and ride the train until the end or hop off sooner. Your choice.
That video had like 35 views before it was posted here. I would think a video on the upcoming IPO of a leader in data and AI would generate more views!
Hint, ya just might be missing some important information. Try carefully reading
It’s terribly burdensome to monitor, guide, and censor these conversations if I have to read carefully those opinions with which I’m being paid to disagree and suppress.
"People seem to be able to get away with publicly voicing absolute BS with impunity!"
Stupid can not be fixed. But it can be voted out.
Jenn Chase actually said "SAS is the leader in data, and AI..."
I spent way too much time (i.e., some time) around software marketing types. One thing I learned is that everyone is the leader in whatever they’re discussing at the moment. This isn’t unique to SAS; everyone lies. Doesn’t make it right, of course, but place it in its proper context.
The sheer illogic and performative emotionalism in the last two comments demonstrate the delusional thinking that SAS can sustain growing future based on what JC said in that softball interview.
Hint, ya just might be missing some important information. Try carefully reading @1fm+1jh3gkdh8 and @1fn+1jh3gkdh8 with sober objectivity instead of blind self righteousness.
People love coming here to air their grievances, anonymously, while continuing to show up on a daily basis to collect their paycheck from said company they want to see go up in smoke. Amazing!
If it makes you sick, then leave!
And if you've been on the inside for the past 25 years, maybe you are part of the problem. If you don't have hope for the company and think it's too little, too late, what are you still doing here? Leave!
Jenn Chase actually said "SAS is the leader in data, and AI..." 😂
and
"In Generative AI we are already looking beyond large language models..." 🤣
This is the problem with American today....the truth doesn't seem to matter anymore. People seem to be able to get away with publicly voicing absolute BS with impunity!
Lies, lies, lies...anything to gain an advantage. It makes me sick.
Does anyone else who has “lived on the inside” for the past 25 years think JC’s pitch is 20 years too late? Her closing salvo comes across as scattered and confused to those with working knowledge of this space.
In light of everything else going on in the world of open-source data management/analytics and AI, isn’t it difficult to take the shallow glitziest of this media appearance seriously? How does it strengthen SAS’ position with potential investors?
SAS CMO on NYSE's "Taking Stock":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hGZjdMZcuA