But you now own a larger percentage of the company because you own the same number of a smaller total number of shares outstanding, so you benefit whether you are a seller or a holder. If you intend to buy more it is neutral because the price per share goes up, but each share represents proportionally more.

If you ever want to sell, getting in the limit nothing for the shares might matter, no? There are other things: for example, share based M&A or compensation or other investors with different preferences - no relevance or interaction?

> If you ever want to sell

I already said that buybacks benefit sellers.

> share based M&A or compensation

All fair points. Share-based M&A can be good for investors. But if the stock price is going up because the company spent money on buybacks, then the company could also just pay cash for M&A and skip the buybacks.

Higher compensation is good for employees who get paid stock and for upper management, who are nearly always paid largely in stock. There's an argument that's good for shareholders because of better retention. But if that were the case, why not just pay employees more cash?

Are there many investors that are never sellers (that is different from selling soon-ish)?

Paying cash could be quite different than paying in shares for M&A.

If owning shares makes no difference ("pay in cash"), why not do buyback then if there is no difference between cash and shares anyway?

Having been in the "don't intend to sell right now" situation for decades, the actual share price movements were always very relevant to me.

I'm confident I share that psychology with almost everyone.

Stop looking.

Well, "don't sell" is the wrong strategy anyway. Trade it in for an index fund.

Can I do that without paying tax on my gains?

If you do it right when your RSUs vest you don't have gains.

Or if you're a multimillionaire: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-07-21/how-rich-...