I don't think pile of cash will be shrinking. They will fire more people and reduce more expenses once profit margin will come closer to danger zone.
And will turn into investment fund once core function will be lost completely.
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).