1/5
This claim is, I think, a little dishonest, or at least pretty circular: "The argument [that companies use funds to buy back stock rather than to invest in their businesses] is based on a decline in tangible investments such as...

www.ft.com/content/47060c4b-1c10-4873-b1e8-4690b56b3b6d

2/5
capital expenditures, measured as a percentage of corporate sales, and neglects a sharp rise in intangible investments, including R&D."

This is circular reasoning because the way you measure "intangible" value is subtracting tangible value from the stock price.

3/5
You can pretend that "intangible" value is real value, but if buybacks boost stock prices above their "real" value, as many argue, the value of "intangible" investment will automatically rise. That's just how we define "intangible" value.

4/5
One thing with which I agree with this article, however, is that stock buybacks aren't really the problem. They're mostly a symptom of the problem, which is that while businesses can easily access capital, they have no reason to use that capital to increase production.

5/5
That's why they buy back their own shares, or the shares of other companies. When you can't make profits by investing to increase productivity, you do so by investing in "financial engineering".