After the recent reorganization in R&D, several managerial positions have been eliminated. Are there still any statisticians left at SAS, formerly known as Statistical Analysis System? Are testers now fixing bugs as a developer? It sure looks like SAS is getting IPO ready.
37 replies (most recent on top)
not going to get quite to that level, but i could certainly see that if you had that 25 year period at the right time (of both SAS lifecycle and the bull market periods) if one's spouse did similar or better.
@8szq+1vpxKiP
Quite probable that anyone retiring from SAS with a net worth approaching $6M did so with additional investments outside of the SAS 401(k). Approximately 23 years ago Mötley Fool was promoting a “buy and hold “ investment strategy in nascent tech companies like Amazon, Amazon, Netflix, Google, etc.. Then there was Apple.
The combination of a 25-year SAS 401(k), and the above outside investments, plus say an $800,000 Cary home or $1.2 million ITB Raleigh home paid off after 12 years of refinanced, low interest rates could easily total $5-6M. Throw in a couple of investment properties and it’s all but certain that such a combination would sum to that.
At its peak Cary HQ had something like 4,500 employees. It’s not unreasonable to think that over the past 30 years, as many as 5% of those, even outside of executive or other higher paying positions have achieved this level of wealth, especially if they have a spouse that makes great money.
@8szq+1vpxKiP0 "...with a good 401k match and 401k-based profit sharing..."
In our case, unfortunately some of the benefit of a good match and profit-share is eroded by having under-performing fund choices in the 401k plan. See the 'getting sued' thread i https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1rfeGJXV
With regards to the $6 million dollar man -- As someone who's been 20+ years out of school, there is certainly a benefit to remaining long-term in a stable company with a good 401k match and 401k-based profit sharing.
Unfortunately, I wasn't one of those people. Instead, I dealt with contract jobs with measly 4% matches, if that, with no profit sharing. I chose to invest in my home instead. At least I have that. Not all of us could be so lucky.
Excellent post. Thank you for that.
"From my $2M+ vantage point, I suspect that the $6M person was simply a better investor than I was. Nothing wrong with that, either. "
for sure. go back in time and put your 401k contributions in FSPTX instead of the really lame Fido target date funds (and the crime of them being the default contribution). How did we get these when in the early days Jim boosted our profit sharing with puts/calls on IBM. He disliked them, but never shied away from making a buck off their ticker :-)
20 years, $2+M, enjoyed 15 years, tolerated 4 years, hated 1 year—not in that order. Had lots of flexibility, plenty of opportunity to grow and/or move to keep from being bored after conquering a new problem. What I hear here is the tip top of 1st World problems, arguing and complaining from convenience, luxury, and boredom. Meet people and families below the median, and get some perspective. Quit acting like working in any office for any company for 50 hours per week is hard work. Eat dinner with someone who sweats for their hourly wage and gets 7 days vacation and no paid sick time per year. See greener grass? Chase it if you will, or not. Plenty left and made a better salary for 18 months and were hit with a layoff. Others saw a 40% pay increase with no issues. Which will you be? No idea. That’s life, and that’s the gamble.
And don’t worry about The Big Guy and what he should/shouldn’t have done. The Big Guy in every company makes good/bad decisions and makes an astronomical amount of money compared to the employees. Glad you spent your years where you did? Great! Hate you wasted a chunk of your life working for a company you said ‘yes’ to and worked there for years? Your call, not The Man’s. Own your choices.
First and last post. No regrets.
definitely. perhaps doesn't fit the definition of "wealthy" when people are talking about RSUs from FAANGs, etc., but one should be fine. Many of us appreciated that profit sharing went to 401(k) plans. Also obviously depends on age. $5m is different at 55 than $2m later. Good luck, everyone.
SAS was a unique company, and the CEO ran it the way he wanted to. He rewarded long-term loyalty, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Most long-term employees, if they were careful, ended up with $2-6M. Enough for retirement, and, as @3jkr+1vpxKiP0 says, richer than 98% of the world.
I’m at the lower end of that range, retired, and happy with the money, though not with my career. I believe if we had had stronger technical leadership, and stock options, and other common features of our industry, we could have built better products.
But we might not have lasted as long. Most tech companies don’t last 50 years.
The SAS CEO built what he wanted to build, and if any of us did not like it, we were free to leave. I left, as did many others, during the Brain Drain of 2021, when SAS was not paying market rates. I believe that by that time the headcount reduction plan was in place, and SAS wanted the attrition.
From my $2M+ vantage point, I suspect that the $6M person was simply a better investor than I was. Nothing wrong with that, either.
JG/SAS was generally better to long-term employees than many other companies
Now, there are those that have exhibited a disdain for the long-term employee. Time will tell (and perhaps it already has) whether that is a mistake.
… at retirement …
Can we collectively acknowledge that net worth that retirement is also a function of peoples’ family and personal circumstances? These include physical and mental health issues, going through one or more divorces, single parenting, various challenges that employees’ children face, eldercare, how much extra effort one can put in WRT ongoing education, changing jobs within a company, etc.
Well there are several paths to achieving a net worth of $2M to $6M over a 25+ year career, my guess is that most folks on the high end had reasonably uncomplicated lives, health, family circumstances, etc. while those closer to the $2M might’ve faced more challenges.
Being more empathic and less judgmental is a good thing. So is recognizing that in spite of perceive shortcomings, JG/SAS was generally better to long-term employees than many other companies. I’m grateful although certainly did not get wealthy working hard for SAS.
"I was there 25+ years, and was careful, and saved 2+M.
It was a fair deal; I understood it when I accepted it; but it was not a way to get rich."
Same, and I am rich compared to 98% of the rest of the world. For that I try to be grateful.
@3mld+1vpxKiP0 Your delivery makes you come across as a pr--k. But that doesn’t make you wrong.
I’m intrigued by the ~6 mil person. If one has done that then others have as well. Everyone speaks as if their situation is the majority. But now I’m curious how many long terneros are in that 5-6 mill range, how many are in the aforementioned 2 mil range?
It's astonishing how making the choice to work at SAS has left so many of you with no agency, no autonomy, no responsibility for your own decisions and no one to blame but others. I didn't realize you were all conscripted to be there, withering on the vine of life with no opportunity to improve your own circumstances.
Grow the fu-k up.
Good going! Guessing you and your wife likely live reasonably frugal in a modest home, purchased sometime in the mid to late 90s, drive older cars, etc. and that you have been disciplined savers/investors for the majority of your working lives.
Buying and holding FAANG-type stocks and/or real estate investments over the past 25 years could also account for a lot of your total net worth. In any case you have definitely reached a high level of wealth for working individuals who did not receive equity from your employer.
Many of us had been critical of JG for not providing equity. It is one reason why SAS is in decline for reasons stated in this forum over the past few years. That said, employees with 25+ years of service, who were “awake” to the reality of working at SAS could build wealth by making lifestyle choices commensurate with their compensation. JG encouraged frugality and many employees who patiently saved, invested and did not overspend are now reaping excellent rewards in retirement.
Maybe I was just luckier than most. 29 years. Mid level. Wife does work but makes maybe 50k a year.
Not a brag but we have net worth of 5.7m. No inheritances or anything.
Folks who rose to senior level technical or customer facing positions who were at SAS for 25+ years could have at least $2M counting home equity — especially at Cary HQ.
Before 2005, a decent home could be purchased for less than $300K in the Triangle area and such senior/principal employees were making at least $100K annually back then. Such houses are worth 2-3x that now and many of those employees were making close to $200K salary+bonus prior to retirement..
With frugal savings and diversified investing, a 401(k) could easily exceed $1M over 25 years and a primary residence paid off. Add some supplemental savings from either extreme frugality or spouse/life partner working and a $2M+ net worth is reasonable and likely what many of us have.
I was there 25+ years, and was careful, and saved 2+M.
It was a fair deal; I understood it when I accepted it; but it was not a way to get rich.
Maybe on dual sas incomes over 25+ years each, 5m....otherwise, no.
"I would think most people who have been there long term would have upwards of 5 million at least squirreled away."
Shirley, you can't be serious.
@2nre+1vpxKiP0 What do you consider a comfortable retirement? I would think most people who have been there long term would have upwards of 5 million at least squirreled away. No?
"I don't know anyone except the owners who "made bank" at SAS. If you started early, you could make it to retirement. There were no great riches involved."
This is the tragic truth for many long term SAS employees. People who have worked really hard at SAS for 30 years or more. Had they dedicated their efforts to any number of other software companies, Oracle, SAP, Microsoft, Adobe, Salesforce, etc, participated in their respective ESPP's and held their stock, they would be worth many many millions by now.
Instead, if they've been sensible and saved, they might have a comfortable retirement but not much more, and have endured at least a decade or more of working in a dysfunctional mess of a company without perhaps even realizing how bad it was and how much they were missing out on.
Meanwhile, two old dudes who had run out of good ideas, enjoyed the riches and gave people cr-ppy pay rises. That's the tragic truth.
The ‘take a lower level or leave’ tactic has been used for a long time. It’s kind of insulting. I once knew some folks who were subjected to that. One moved on, and then came back, albeit at a lower level.
The other one moved orgs, went to school, and remained until they finished their education…then they left.
The whole thing was an exercise in ‘punish and purge’ so that a new regime could take and consolidate power. Management seats just changed places among staff —‘Hey, it’s my turn to be the boss for awhile! (And now I’m going to hire my well-papered over kid…)
""...The 'job title way below ..' I guess was their way to fully send the message that they wanted those folks to leave..."
Or, an assessment of their actual contributions?"
I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of trimming of dead wood that could be done at SAS. In this case, they decided to cut down the healthy, productive trees.
The people I knew in this latest round were definitely "working" managers. Two in particular, I know for a fact, had contributions that exceeded the Principal levels who were reporting to them. Still completely d-mbfounded by how they were treated.
"...The 'job title way below ..' I guess was their way to fully send the message that they wanted those folks to leave..."
Or, an assessment of their actual contributions?
"Managerial jobs were eliminated in a reorg. Each former manager was offered a choice of staying on as an individual contributor with a job title way below his/her contributions and years of experience or take a severance package."
The "job title way below .." I guess was their way to fully send the message that they wanted those folks to leave. Sad.
I don't know anyone except the owners who "made bank" at SAS. If you started early, you could make it to retirement. There were no great riches involved.
Did all the managers without a job after this reorg fit the profile of older, highly regarded, been there forever and probably making bank?
@1vry+1vpxKiP0 Very much that.
I know some VMware folks. Some made out like bandits with substantial amounts of $ vested at this point.
Others not so much
You mean the employees that had not been laid off would get those RSUs, and would have to hang on for dear life through the further cuts until the RSUs had vested.
@pfd+1vpxKiP0
That's it. SAS is done. SAS knows it can't compete in anything much. That's why the pace of innovation / new features / new products has all but dried up.
That's why the Broadcom deal made so much sense. Just imagine if the sale had gone through. If the VMware deal was anything to go by, mid-level SAS employees would have got $200k+ of Broadcom RSUs at around $50/share now valued at around $180/share. Those RSU's would now be worth over $700k, plus any additional stock purchased through the ESPP.
I recall at the time that SAS employees were horrified by the idea of Broadcom purchasing them. Yes, maybe not the most generous of employers in terms of perks and fancy offices and cafes, but they know how to extract value from legacy tech, for the benefit of shareholders. And unlike SAS, those beneficiaries include the employees.
The generosity of SAS seems rather superficial in comparison, doesn't it?
This is bad news for those affected. But, hey, let's be positive!
The Art Department, which is safe, is still safe.
There was a reorg in R&D that "flattened" the organization. Several managers have left.
About 95% of SAS/STAT features are in R and Python. SAS/STAT does a few things better, but not enough to compete against open source.
This is sad to see, because statistics was the core competency of SAS. But it makes good business sense to exit a market in which SAS can no longer compete.
Once that decision has been made, it makes sense to reduce headcount in that area.
What's missing, as always, is the innovation into new revenue streams that can compete.
If SAS has decided it cannot do that, then it makes sense to exit the business entirely, via sale or IPO.
@wae+1vpxKiP0 Usually people on here are full of sh-t. But there certainly was a reorg. And I know at least one manager who is leaving although the circumstances aren’t clear. But this fits.
Managerial jobs were eliminated in a reorg. Each former manager was offered a choice of staying on as an individual contributor with a job title way below his/her contributions and years of experience or take a severance package. Many opted for the severance package, including both development managers and testing managers. Excellent statisticians with decades of irreplaceable experience walked out the door. Yes, there are still statisticians at SAS, some very good ones, but the number is nowhere near what it once was. Between the two voluntary retirement packages, ordinary retirements, and now this, there is minimal support for SAS/STAT. But the company does not care about such things anymore.
There haven’t been any reorganizations or managerial layoffs. Your information is incorrect.