We also used to enforce antitrust law.
The first notable push-back on that state of affairs was Lina Khan under Biden, who ever so slightly course-corrected us back toward healthy market competition in the tiniest of ways, and every business bro reacted like she was committing mass murder. Meanwhile, we need that times ten for at least a decade just to get us back to something resembling functioning markets. At this point I doubt we'll see a shift back toward reasonable market regulation... ever. Plutocrat capture of the levers of power is so complete that the only way I expect the US to see serious anti-trust action ever again is as a tool of corruption.
I've been reading the Chernow biography of Rockefeller, and this simply isn't true. We've almost never enforced "anti-trust law", and it's basically never been particularly effective.
The Sherman Act was widely considered a failure (even after passage in 1890). It did little/nothing to affect the fate of Standard Oil, which actually grew for a decade after passage, to over 90% control of the market by 1904. This is despite the state of Ohio engaging in a much more successful legal attack, based on technicalities of the trust charter, having nothing to do with the federal law.
The thing that actually brought down Standard Oil was...competition. By the time the company was actually broken up in under the Sherman Act in 1911, it had declined to ~60% market share. The overall story is essentially the same as today: the law ends up being used to punish declining companies for prior bad behavior.
The problem comes when you erode what was meant to be a strong antitrust law through decades of narrowing interpretations and then it's not deterring them anymore.
> the law ends up being used to punish declining companies for prior bad behavior.
The solution to this one is to take the politicians out of it and allow customers to file antitrust class actions.
All of the whims that go into the market price are still there. If you're a shareholder who doesn't care about the share price you're going to have a bad time.
> It also forces a certain discipline in the company, since shareholders don't like dividends getting cut.
Which usually leads to mismanagement more than anything because the company gets into a situation where they should lower the dividend but is under pressure not to and then starts eating their seed corn so they can still pay the dividend.
> It also limits empire-building, di-worsification, and "good ideas" that have questionable ROI.
Buybacks do the same thing.
Shareholders love dividends because it is taxed as capital gains ( long-term capital gains if you own the stock longer than 1 year ). It's why most of the publicly listed stock ( of profitable companies ) pay dividends - because shareholders want dividends. Apple was forced to pay dividends by investors. So was Meta. As was Alphabet. All under shareholder pressure because dividends get tax as capital gains. Any company sitting on a pile of cash will get pressure to pay it out as dividends by shareholders.
It's much better to have the company buy shares back. That way the stock price goes up. You then only face the tax event once you sell the stock later in the future. So you just avoided a tax event.
The reason for dividends is that pension funds and the like do like dividends for whatever reasons.
Individual investors and people who have a long term approach like Warren Buffet are against dividends.
This isn't right but it's adjacent.
Executives don't need buybacks to get whatever compensation. Their compensation is negotiated and you can write the contract to make it whatever.
However, paying dividends is a taxable event, which means shareholders don't like it. You have to pay the tax on the dividend immediately instead of when you sell the shares, even if you just use the money to buy more shares. Buybacks don't work like that unless you're the one who sells your shares in the buyback. Which you can be if you'd rather have the money immediately (and pay the tax) than de facto increase your holdings in the company.
If transferring money to shareholders as dividends forces them to realize taxable gains before they want to then they'd prefer the company keep the money and invest it in something internally instead. Buybacks give them away around that.
But that's not necessarily bad. The shareholders (the ones who sold their shares) get the money instead and then invest it in something else, ideally a different company so that the existing large company doesn't get even bigger.
Also, when the company keeps the money, it doesn't have to use it for R&D at all. Companies often use it to acquire other companies, which is the worst.
You don't really want a tax incentive to make big companies bigger.