This response is not productive in moving discourse forward. If you have something constructive to add then do so without ignoring the bulk of my arguments while only focusing on one element and interpreting it in the weakest possible way. To that point of course dividends affect stock price to some extent. So does almost everything, paying off debt would, buying new equipment. But for the sake of simplicity and conciseness I made a generalization. I look forward to a reasoned debate. These are important issues for leaders of companies and society at large.
> If an executive is paid in stock, and has compensation tied to stock price then there is an incentive to conduct stock buy backs and not issue dividends.
You're touching on agency costs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_cost), which is a broader issue than stock buybacks. Management can always game their actions to favor their self-interest (compensation) over shareholder interests. They can also choose to invest in projects that will make the company look good in the short-term at the expense of long-term profits to shareholders, because management can always just stick around for a few year before shit hits the fan. See, e.g. what Jack Welch did to GE https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/ge-ceo-feud-welch-vs-imm...
My point is the fact that share buybacks are yet another avenue for management to mismanage a company for their own benefit doesn't make them bad per se, or worse than stock dividends. Investors should evaluate share buybacks on a case-by-case basis to assess whether they believe
The solution is improved corporate governance predicated on having an top-tier Board of Director structure with a significant share of independent directors vs. an entrenched BoD. That's why ESG is an increasingly relevant theme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental%2C_social_and_co...
