And will turn into investment fund once core function will be lost completely.
(sorry, couldn’t resist…)
The question I am having trouble parsing is who makes the decision to become a pension fund at Google given their historical focus has been on technology. It's a significant pivot.
At a small closely held firm I can see the owners deciding to use the corporation as a vehicle for managing retirement funds (or inter-generational wealth transfer) but Google has a much more diverse base of owners with divergent interests.
I don't think anyone said Google has to become pension fund. They can become some generic investment fund: invest into stocks, other funds, bonds etc, or focus on tech investments.
The thesis I am fighting against is that all it takes to become a successful investor is a big pile of cash. There many many counterexamples.
Buffet and Munger at Berkshire Hathaway prove a different point: a sound investment thesis pursued diligently to enable compounding can yield very attractive returns.
Yahoo is managing web properties and is essentially a media company (is paid by advertisers or other customers to deliver a well-characterized audience).
The people left are the hacks and the ones with mortgages.