I want news, but I'll accept conjecture.
93 replies (most recent on top)
Flat revenue for 10 years (if you don’t count inflation) or declining revenue (if you do) show that Viya has not sold enough to change SAS’ direction.
Job postings show that Viya has not sold enough for companies to invest in hiring for that skill.
Most software companies employ telemetry to learn about product usage. So people inside SAS probably know how many customers are actually relying on Viya, not just trying it.
Unless those people show their numbers, the publicly available numbers are the best ones we have.
@9niw+1vMsBcsG Never claimed my hope was a plan.
You however repeatedly claim that your 30 second search on LinkedIn for job posting is evidence no one using Viya. That is not exactly conclusive research.
"Definitely not safe to assume that. But you be you."
Flat revenue for 10 years in spite of a "great pipeline", masses of potential buyers lined up to buy SAS since the post Broadcom flirtations, and layoffs have ceased. Your hope is admirable! That is the good news. The bad news is that your hope is not a plan and it has not produced a sale. But you be you.
“ Based on the scant job openings seeking Viya, it is safe to assume that is a very small number.”
Definitely not safe to assume that. But you be you.
“they can have nice jobs managing the real estate portfolio — which at this point is more valuable than SAS.”
More valuable than SAS… care to show some number to indicate that is even remotely close to being true? I think not.
"I have a hard time envisioning that the founders want to see SAS have this kind of ending"
I agree. But that's just ego and vanity, not good business.
From what I've observed in elderly people, vanity and ego tends to decline in the final years, but then so does business acumen. So who know's whats going on in the old man's head.
"All that's really needed is a skeleton crew in finance, legal, and customer success. Tech support can be largely replaced with AI."
None of the above has to be staged at Cary NC if all a buyer wants is the V9 declining revenue stream.
I have a hard time envisioning that the founders want to see SAS have this kind of ending...
- I
well if you could do that mostly offshore, maybe you could do it for USD 50 million, so just keep collecting your (probably less than) 3 billion ... OTOH, if that's the case, the buyers who follow this playbook if there are a lot of them should be lined up.
It might take 1000 in finance, legal, and customer success, plus another 1000 to maintain the software. But all the maintenance could be done in India where salaries are cheap.
Whatever the number, it's a fraction of the current headcount. And any buyer of a declining software revenue stream will know exactly how to maximize their profits.
"The safest SAS asset is the V9 revenue stream. Consequently a new buyer won't do much initially to upset that golden goose."
I agree with the first sentence, but not the second. There's a lot that can be done that will not upset the V9 revenue stream. Sales, pre-sales, R&D, marketing, can all go. All that's really needed is a skeleton crew in finance, legal, and customer success. Tech support can be largely replaced with AI.
I reckon the V9 revenue stream (renewals) could be managed with less than 1000 people.
"I wish we knew how many customers are depending on Viya"
Based on the scant job openings seeking Viya, it is safe to assume that is a very small number.
If Viya is not handsomely profitable, it is reasonable to expect a buyer to deal with it expeditiously.
The safest SAS asset is the V9 revenue stream. Consequently a new buyer won't do much initially to upset that golden goose.
@8uin+1vMsBcsG
The multi-generational incentive is to sell, rather than to hold.
None of the children have shown interest in running a software company. Perhaps they might, if it were growing, rather than declining. But anyway, they have not.
A software company can’t be easily divided. The families can own shares, but they’d have to reach agreement on every major decision, and some would simply want to sell.
Estate taxes run as high as 40%. None of the heirs have enough cash on hand to write that check. So, if SAS is inherited, it would likely be sold immediately to pay taxes, and perhaps sold into a poor market. It’s much better to arrange an orderly sale beforehand, so that heirs inherit liquid assets.
Finally, holding a declining asset doesn’t benefit the heirs. They don’t need jobs at SAS; they can have nice jobs managing the real estate portfolio — which at this point is more valuable than SAS.
A sale is in the best interest of their families, and the owners are taking every action necessary to sell. In a few months, they’ll have three years’ worth of audited financial statements, as required by the SEC to IPO in 2025. Unless the market declines, or a private buyer makes a better offer, it’s a logical exit strategy.
There is multi-generational wealth at stake here. By not cashing out, he protects those people from themselves. Have you ever heard the saying "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations"? That's all the incentive needed to keep things as they are.
@7nrw+1vMsBcsG: “It’s doubtful that they will cancel Viya completely…”
I wish we knew how many customers are depending on Viya, rather than simply “kicking its tires” and using V9. If there are more than a few, then you are right, Viya cannot be cancelled.
You ask a good question:
“Can anyone who is currently on the vanguard of what is going on at SAS comment on how strategic Viya/CAS is being treated internally WRT ongoing development and product strategy?”
to "cash out" and give liquid assets rather than a "job" in the "art department" (or whatever). or perhaps you really believe you can raise funds to make bigger bets on actual innovations (possibly via capital for acquiring companies and capable talent, instead of expecting the incompetent sycophants or uninterested "off brand children" to do something).
If your company has $3B in annual revenue, and it employs many of your on-brand and off-brand children (and grandchildren?), plus many of their friends and family, why would you ever sell?
It’s doubtful that they will cancel Viya completely because that would cause tedium with several very large existing customers to depend on both V9 and Viya.
Can anyone who is currently on the vanguard of what is going on at SAS comment on how strategic Viya/CAS is being treated internally WRT ongoing development and product strategy?
The sellers may cancel some small loser products, as they did with Retail. But they will not cancel any large ones, because that creates bad publicity in front of a sale.
The company will be sold in 2025, 2026, or 2027, depending on market conditions. The buyer will only see value in the legacy $3B revenue stream, so they will cancel Viya immediately.
Conjecture: sale drags until founders are gone because they don't want to see products they wished were winners being tossed as losers.
“ Who's Company Man?”
"The funny thing is that he/she thinks there is only one such person on here."
'Company Man' and 'Company Boy', working together behind the scenes to defend their honorable mother against the bad men who beat her.
Let's not forget about the potential for 'off-brand' children to run departments, much like the 'on-brand' ones do in other business units. I believe they are there, and I believe they ascend the ranks over time as a form of entitlement -- like children who get periodic raises in their allowance. Good luck competing for roles or doing your best professional work when that dynamic is at play. Fealty appears to be the optimal career strategy.
Long ago, the company joked "At SAS, we're family!" After seeing various children of Directors hired, and other crazy dynamics, they weren't kidding.
@4gat+1vMsBcsG agree.
Leadership and their underlings of Management only care about "yes men" and brown nosers who su-k up to them. They have blinders on to only look at and choose the same type of people over and over. They are incapable of being able to see anyone outside of those select few people of being worthy. Over the years, I've seen this company become a shell of what it used to be. Talented people have left and shined elsewhere, where they are valued and given meaningful work, challenging projects and opportunity to truly grow. Doesn't even have to do with competence or abilities. Just if you act the part, fit in on the golf course, say all the right words or look a certain way. You will surely rise to the top. For everyone else, good luck. I'd start finding your exit plan before this place implodes.
You're mistaking empirical evidence for opinion. Learn the difference.
As to the past: I was there, and I saw the facts as they occurred.
Talented leaders were systematically pushed out of the company, and sycophants promoted. This process continued for decades, so that gradually the sycophants dominated the talent, and politics prevented the development of new revenue streams.
This is the Peter Principle. Unless a company is carefully managed, it always happens. To claim it’s not a fact requires SAS Institute to be an exception to the rule. It’s not.
As to the future: it’s a fact that software companies with declining revenue streams get acquired. They always get acquired.
Broadcom and private equity have acquired literally hundreds of declining software companies. And they always follow the same playbook: conduct mass layoffs, outsource the maintenance, and maximize the profits.
An event that always happens is not merely an “opinion”. It’s a certainty.
“ We had some great managers at SAS. There are some there still, but they’re outnumbered. Over the decades, the ratio of competent leaders to toxic sycophants steadily declined.”
Opinion. Not fact. Learn the difference,
Th rest of it is also opinion. Likely right more or less but opinion. Things in the future are not fact….
Learn the difference.
@3ldm+1vMsBcsG stated facts.
We had some great managers at SAS. There are some there still, but they’re outnumbered. Over the decades, the ratio of competent leaders to toxic sycophants steadily declined.
The most important fact is at the end of the post:
“…the buyer guts management, then the workforce. With half its current headcount SAS would be a successful revenue stream… No develop, only maintain.”
That paragraph describes precisely the business model of any potential buyer of a
declining $3B revenue stream. They have bought old software companies many times, they have a playbook, and they follow it. And one play in that playbook is that maintenance is done more cheaply overseas.
We can each take our guesses as to when SAS ends. But how it ends is the way all software companies end. @3ldm+1vMsBcsG stated the fact.
It sure rustled your jimmies, fren.
@3ldm+1vMsBcsG That was a sh-t ton of your opinions. Not facts no matter how adamant you are.
Conjecture
- More layoffs - especially the diversity hires from the last 3 - 4 years.
- SAS will not IPO in 2025. Look to 2026 or later, if it even does.
- Major shake up at the C-level. Someone else will be on the chopping block or leave for greener pastures.
- Art department will not be safe.
For 2025: economy will get worse, prices will rise even higher, and layoffs galore including at SAS.
Sounds like it means something to you.
There are plenty of positive things to say about SAS, but they're all about SAS in the past. SAS is a different company now. Declining revenue and poor decisions created a toxic culture which rewards and promotes incompetence. When the work of a principle is indistinguishable from a null-level, what does "principle" mean? When managers or directors can't make decisions, or consistently make bad decisions, why are they deciding anything? The essential function of management is resource utilization. The essential function of leadership is strategic direction.
The company most people think of as SAS died when management at SAS became self-sustaining. There are directors who haven't been able to hit their development targets or commitments for over a decade now, but they've got someone's back, and their chosen few underlings have their back. They're secure, but they've risen to the level of their incompetence and should probably be demoted to make room for someone who might be able to get the job done. But that will never happen.
At least, not until the company actually IPOs and the buyer guts management, then the workforce. With half its current headcount SAS would be a successful revenue stream for a buyer. No develop, only maintain.
“ Who's Company Man?”
Anyone who says something positive about SAS which goes against his/her view of the world.
Way easier to diminish someone with meaningless name calling than using substance and maybe even acknowledging other people have valid opinions.
The funny thing is that he/she thinks there is only one such person on here.
"sas sold for what Broadcom bid + 5%"
Yeah, that's not gonna happen. That's the "fantasy" ending to the dream, but then the hero wakes up.
"Company Man laid off"
Who's Company Man?
@2zcx+1vMsBcsG Not a chance
2025 conjecture:
- sas sold for what Broadcom bid + 5%
- Company Man laid off
I can't see them from here. Perhaps you can share them and enlighten everyone?
@2tcu+1vMsBcsG It is…. Look at actual numbers and not anonymous site.
What if the "decline" is all in our heads?
"Viya has not slowed the decline, resulting in a decision to sell."
To the contrary because Viya has accelerated the decline of SAS. Viya not being 100percent compatible with V9 is incentive for V9 users to jump off the SAS ship. Indirectly, Viya has accelerated the decline of V9 revenue.
Viya was the worst gamble SAS ever took and the timing of Viya could not have happened at a worse time. No other single event has had a larger detrimental effect on SAS.
I expect layoffs in 2025 and a delay in IPO or a firesale.