Disclaimer: I can take any side of the regulatory pendulum with a straight face, and that also means pointing out accurate statements with no real opinion on either.
Buybacks were illegal because it falsely showed demand in the market. False demand is a key point in modern market manipulation and fraud cases.
Given that reality dissolved 30 years ago, of course we are all familiar with the arguments "It’s anti-dilutive and can be in the interest of shareholders"
My understanding is that stock buybacks are generally better than issuing a dividend for the simple reason that with a buyback, an owner can choose to sell (and incur a taxable event) or not sell, while with a dividend the taxable event is forced upon them.
A convenient reality as they can also just be used to constrict the supply of shares on market more and more, which is what they do. How also convenient that it can result in gains much more amplified than dividends.
Yes, your observation is also true. But lets not pretend companies were really trying to choose between dividends and buybacks, most don't do dividends and ultimately never return capital to shareholders, which is the point of stock: to act as a conduit in sharing earnings.
There is also the tax perspective: in many jurisdictions dividends and capital gains are taxed differently, often with a higher tax on dividends. In that case buybacks are better for investors.
Buybacks were illegal because it falsely showed demand in the market. False demand is a key point in modern market manipulation and fraud cases.
Given that reality dissolved 30 years ago, of course we are all familiar with the arguments "It’s anti-dilutive and can be in the interest of shareholders"