[matrss]

DB has been reorganized as an AG in the 90s, i.e. a corporation under private law. They are forced to (at least try to) make a profit for their shareholders, which is a common trait of private organizations. They consistently do so via short-sighted (mis-)management, another common trait with many private organizations. This privatized corporation is indeed fully owned by the state as its only shareholder, but unfortunately that doesn't manifest in the DB being run as the critical infrastructure that it is. I suspect that the indirections in power over the corporation that the privatized structure imposes is a key reason for why it became such a disaster.

[smcl]

I wonder how many times a low-effort "truthy" sounding comment like that is written without someone like you to correct them and to clarify. There's also comments here suggesting UK's privatisation fixed BR that I do not have the energy to correct anymore, so they just sit there being wrong for all to see

[arcfour]

Is their comment true because you want it to be, or is it actually factually inaccurate and biased as many other people are saying?

[apexalpha]

> They are forced to (at least try to) make a profit for their shareholders,

This is not true at all.

The shareholders set the targets and since the shareholder is the government they can set any target they want: profitability, more trains, cheaper tickets etc..

If the shareholder wants to inject 10% every year in stead of taking a profit they are absolutely free to do so.

[matrss]

The DB AG has been specifically founded to be "market-oriented" and profit-making, so yes, it is true.

I am sure the state could try to do _something_ about it, but I am also sure that a very strong car lobby here in Germany is working against that. BTW, the road network, which I would consider to conceptually be the same kind of infrastructure as the rail network, is to my understanding mostly built and maintained by state organizations, so it is possible to do it that way.

I guess it is also harder to market "let's subsidize this private company with tax payer money so they can continue to offer mediocre service" to voters, compared to "let's use tax payer money to build and maintain one-of-a-kind critical infrastructure from which everyone (with a car, which due to the less-than-great alternatives is a lot of people) can profit".

Again, having it organized as a private company adds indirection, diffuses power and responsibility, and adds a certain more or less implicit expectation of what private companies are supposed to do. That's my main issue with it. Private companies aren't supposed to run critical infrastructure as a monopoly for profit. It's the states job to provide and maintain critical infrastructure in the interest of all.

[garbagewoman]

Do you know that the government has set those targets?

[thesimon]

> They are forced to (at least try to) make a profit for their shareholders [...]

Not true. Shareholder primacy is not as huge as in Delaware.

And in the end it's the government that owns all shares and thus can decide how much profit the company should make.

[matrss]

Just because it is even more true elsewhere does not mean it is untrue here.

[ernst_klim]

That's ridiculous. DB is not even trying to become profitable, not is there any evidence that it's sole shareholder, aka the government, sets it as a target.

[matrss]

Well apparently they have been somewhat profitable from 2016 to 2019, and they have been paying a dividend to the state more often than not. I don't think their goal is actively loosing money?