The fact that the current CFO is a long-term Morgan Stanley alum should be a pretty strong signal about the direction the board wants to take Google. It's not that hard to turn into Microsoft...
My great hope is that the new funding rules will make startups accessible to the general investing population. That would, in principle, obviate the desire of existing companies with mature, successful businesses to go out and start unrelated new efforts. Conglomerates aren't very popular these days and haven't been for a long time; it would be nice to see these companies stick to what they're good at, pay their shareholders richly, and then let those shareholders decide whether they want to go invest that income in something else (and if so, in what).
Well, a man can dream, right?
http://www.microsoft.com/Investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Fina...
If the CEO was a Morgan Stanley alum, maybe, having a CFO from that background doesn't seem to be all that strong of a signal of anything.
Could you elaborate why you don't think the CFO is a strong signal?
I don't think the CFO having a history in a large financial firm is strong signal for the same reason I don't think the Chief Counsel having a history in a large legal firm or -- even for a firm that isn't a tech firm -- the CTO having a history in a large tech firm is a strong signal: its a background tightly connected to the specific domain of responsibility.
OTOH, a CEO or COO being drawn from a specific industry other than the one the firm is operating in, or any C-level drawn from an industry both different than that of the firm and not tied to the specific domain for which they are responsible, may be a strong signal.