I see this repeated many times on investing forums and in the news. This statement is only partially true and is a shallow way of thinking how CEOs and CFOs manage their company. This is a topic on working capital management. We as shareholders do not know what is going on in the company and we leave it to the management to make decisions. I'll try to explain with an example.
Firstly, let's say Apple has $10 billion cash from profits sitting in their bank account giving 1.5% interest p.a.
Of course they are actively looking for investments. However, if there are no good investments why invest?
E.g. Apple feel they cannot expand organically at the moment but may be open to acquisitions in future.
Now when shareholders invest in Apple, they want a return greater than the risk free rate of course.
Why invest in Apple just to get 1.5% p.a.?

So Apple's cost of equity is definitely higher.
Rather than leaving this cash in the bank at 1.5% interest p.a., Apple can distribute this $10 billion back to shareholders either in dividends or share buybacks.
Dividends are not as attractive as share buybacks because dividends are taxed higher that capital gains tax in US.
Therefore, they perform buybacks instead while there tax rates are low.
This is the best time for US companies to perform buybacks because Trump lowered the corporate taxes since he is in office and debt financing is very cheap.
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. When you are a shareholder, you are the shareholder. There is nothing wrong with being minority or majority here because share buybacks does not favour one party. When share price goes up because of buybacks, both benefit. It's not like minority shareholders get a lower share price.
In case you didn't know, shares bought back by the company are owned by all shareholders. It's not like majority gets to own the shares. Minority owns them too.
Everyone owns a portion according to % of ownership in the company.
Also, these shares are cancelled or can be redistributed back to all shareholders in future.
Bank of Japan is not the company. When they buy shares, it is not a buy back but an investment/contractionary monetary policy via open market operations.
Why it's not a buyback? Because these shares are not cancelled. Meaning the number of shares outstanding remains the same and thus EPS and DPS remains the same given the same level of profit.
Growth using acquisition is one possible way of reinvesting profits but what if there are no good companies to acquire now?
You cannot simply buy over companies just because you have cash. Even worse if you make the wrong decision (i.e. acquire a terrible company just for the sake of acquiring).
Also, there are many variables involved. You cannot simply acquire just because you feel like it.
Let's say Apple has the cash to buy over McDonalds. But why? Does McDonalds fit Apple? Does Apple know how to run a fast food restaurant? No.
Wrong acquisitions may have serious consequences especially when there is a corporate culture mismatch.
Not offence but it's nothing personal. I'm not convinced but it's ok...different thoughts and opinions in investments.