Sorry, I honestly can't tell if that's sarcasm.

I think I can. It's sarcasm. He's just stating the obvious.

Buybacks are nothing more than investing a company's cash in the future prospects of the company. That may, or may not, be a good judgment. That's why Buffett requires a margin of safety in his "conservative" estimate of IV before doing a BRK buyback. And even made it a requirement of his board - a formal test of his judgment.

Buybacks only impact the future returns to shareholders. But there's nothing immediate about them. So calling them an immediate return to shareholders is simply wrong.

What do you get when you do a buyback? You exchange cash - with it's own current value versus inflation - against the FUTURE prospects of the company you're investing in. Not really any different than investing the cash in a different company outside your own. There's really no difference. It's a bet on the future on your own, or someone else's, company.

I've never understood buybacks as being an IMMEDIATE return to shareholders. They aren't. And I'm disappointed that even XOM treats them that way. Sure, they spread future earning over fewer shares, increasing earnings per share. That should increase market price. But there are many, many other factors that impact market price. How can you judge in advance how buybacks impact future prices? You're counting chickens before the eggs hatch.

So when Buffett expresses that he values the buybacks of stocks he owns, he's really saying that he values their FUTURE prospects more than the cash they're using for buybacks.

It's not that complicated.