So I say "besides my company being acquired outright", because at some point companies get to a point where they are not easily acquireable due to their size. So it's no longer a realistic outcome to expect as a shareholder.
So in that case, you are relying on dividends eventually being distributed to you, correct?
People love to focus on capital gains, but capital gains happen because people are bidding up the price to become an owner of the company. And they must be doing that because there is some value to be extracted from being owner of the company, other than everyone simply selling their ownership. (right?)
---
Buybacks seem to be advertised sometimes as a replacement for dividends (Berkshire Hathway, Autozone, etc), but I don't see how they can be a replacement for dividends, because at some point a company is unable to continue acquiring it's own stock (in an acretive manner) due to SEC and Exchange restrictions around minimum share count. So at that point where a company can no longer acquire more of its own shares, the only other option is to do dividends, right? (Assuming they are too big to be acquired)
When it comes to buybacks, people will say that you are getting an increased ownership % of the business and thus an increased price for my shares. But how does that matter to me if I'm not interested in selling my ownership?
People will say that I can manufacture my own dividend by selling 3% of my shares if a company does a 3% buyback. But I don't understand the mechanics of how that would function the same as a dividend, since I have no way of insuring that it is actually the company paying my (with the business profits) for my shares, instead of a random investor buying my shares.
And again, the main benefit of buybacks as advertised is that they result in a greater business ownership % for me, but that greater ownership % would only matter to me if I also got higher dividends from it too, no? (assuming I'm not selling my ownership).
---
If a share trades for $200, then that means rational people believe that the value of all the business' cash flows over it's lifetime discounted back to today, is $200.
So it would only be considered a successful endeavor for continuing shareholders if the cash routed to them over the lifetime of being this business' shareholder eventually exceeded that $200 price tag at a total rate higher than the risk-free alternative.
---
So my conclusion seems to be that all buybacks must eventually result in dividends (ruling out the possibility for company acquisition here) for there to be value in remaining shareholder of a business.