Isn't a stock buy back equivalent to a reverse stock split with the gains being split between those who want to sell their stock getting immediate money while t

Isn't a stock buy back equivalent to a reverse stock split with the gains being split between those who want to sell their stock getting immediate money while those who don't get higher value stocks? I've seen a lot of negativity about the process, but I don't see how it is any worse than anything else involving moving stocks. Take a company with X non-liquid value and Y liquid value. They want to spent some part of Y, let's call it Z, doing a stock buy back. There are M stocks to start with, and after a buyback there will be N stocks. Default (do nothing): Original stock holders have M stocks worth (X + Y) total. Total value, X + Y. Pay dividends instead: Original stock holders have M stocks worth (X + Y - Z) total and Z dividends. Total value, X + Y. Do stock buyback: Original stock holders have N stocks worth (X + Y - Z) total and Z buyback payments. Total value, X + Y. The only difference between 1 and 2 vs 3 is how the value is split. In 1 each stock holder holds stock proportional to how many stocks they held at the start. In 2, each stock holder holds stocks and dividends proportional to how many stocks they held at the start. In 3, stock holders hold different allocations of stock and buy back money based on if they sold or not, but with the total value proportional to how many stocks they held at the start. What makes 3 so much worse than 1 or 2?