The difference from actual price manipulation, is that the price change in issues and buybacks is a permanent effect of the material change of the number of outstanding shares, not a fledging effect of the change in trade volume, i.e. the intrinsic value of the stock goes up or down.
edit: of course buybacks, like dividends, decrease the value of a company, and issuing stock increase it, so it is not clear cut.
Stocks are supposed to be a share of ownership in a company, and the price goes up and down because being an owner of a company goes up and down in desirability, based on how well the company is doing.
Just like with buying your own book, buying your own stock artificially increases the desirability.
companies can create new stock anytime out of thin air, and that decreases the price. why can't they do the opposite?
some owners of the company decide to buy stocks from the others, thus consolidating ownership. that's what stock buyback is.
note, the argument for taxing buybacks is completely different, and valid. (and it might make sense, it might not, it depends on the circumstances. externalities tax (pollution, tax on induced traffic, etc), LVT (land value tax) and wealth tax would be much better, than taxing transactions.)
So at any point, a company can devalue existing shares that people have already purchased? That also sounds like a problem.
companies on stock exchanges usually do stock splits, etc. (and based on bylaws majority or 2/3rs or more of existing owners need to approve.)
Following your example, it'd be like the author of a book buying the book they wrote from someone else. If the author chooses to pay someone else 1000$ for their book, they can, but they will be wasting money.
A company doing a stock buyback is trading off their own capital (they have to spend it, it's not an infinite money glitch where they buy it from themselves) to get back shares of the company itself at the then-market-price. The market chooses whether that's a good trade. It may not
What's the best-seller list in this case?
Bought back shares strictly increase the price for existing shareholders as it takes them off the market. The entire concept is mainly due to stupidity in tax law that ends up double taxing direct dividends.
Ignoring inflation if a company issues the same inflation adjusted dividend forever say 1% at current prices. In theory the stock should stay roughly the same over the next hundred or thousand years. However, with a buyback the stock would increase constantly forever with endless stock splits.
The second option is great for long term owners in terms of taxes, but it’s also manipulation of the stock price.
The exact same company can be a great investment at 10$, and a terrible investment at 10,000$. You can’t separate stock price from if something is a good investment or not.
The example I gave was low risk 1% dividend, that’s not a stock I would want to own. Net result the company, which has inside information, should expect the price to correct ie fall at some point and thus be a poor investment until that point. That doesn’t prevent them from buying it because the goal isn’t a positive ROI.