Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
That is a very generous % for profit-sharing. The term "profit-sharing" has disappeared in private sector several decades ago. Several companies I worked for paid less than 1-3% as year-end "bonus".
"...Workers will receive a bonus equal to 17 percent of their annual base pay for 2015, snapping a string of six straight years that the award has been 18.4 percent or higher. The bonus was 18.7 percent in 2014."
Must be all of those commercials during televised sporting events.
So USAA's bonus dropped by 9.1% (-1.7%/18.7%) vs. Vanguard's profit sharing increase of 12%. Y/Y change, not percentage of wages.
The Reuters article seems to suggest simply that as Vanguard's profits rose, profit sharing (per share) rose commensurately; not that a greater (or even large) percentage of profits were being shared. How does Vanguard have profits anyway?
Comments
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/San-Antonio-based-USAA-announces-annual-6785116.php
Excerpt:
"...Workers will receive a bonus equal to 17 percent of their annual base pay for 2015, snapping a string of six straight years that the award has been 18.4 percent or higher. The bonus was 18.7 percent in 2014."
Must be all of those commercials during televised sporting events.
Y/Y change, not percentage of wages.
The Reuters article seems to suggest simply that as Vanguard's profits rose, profit sharing (per share) rose commensurately; not that a greater (or even large) percentage of profits were being shared. How does Vanguard have profits anyway?