Ahh found the article i was thinking of, but it's actually...

Ahh found the article i was thinking of, but it's actually Graham arguing that paying out an 'insufficient dividend' can be in the interest of majority shareholders over the minority holders:- interesting because it's in opposition to views held by Warren Buffett (for reasons that may be down to Buffett's bias as a majority controlling shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway).
https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/valueinvesting/files/files/DOC016(1).pdf

Somewhat related to the discussion but not about buybacks. I'm not aware of Graham's opposition to the later.

I would suggest in terms of buybacks at depressed prices, they are in the interest of those who hold and at the cost of those who sell. This is different to being in the interest of the majority vs minority shareholders as both have full agency to choose whether they sell or hold. Actually this isn't quite correct as minor holders typically have MORE agency to sell or buy as their trades (individually) are less likely to impact the market price of the stock.

A major holder who panics and sells at the time of a buyback is the looser just as much as a minor holder doing the same thing and it isn't the role of the company to protect investors from their own poor choices.

The counter argument would be that smaller investors may have more real world reliance on the dividend for cash income and may therefore (with no dividend) be forced to sell at depressed prices. To respond - there must be some personal responsibility placed on said small investor to manage their own finances, and forward plan / manage the risks associated with relying on company dividends for income.

That said I would say that the executive should be most focused on the financial health of the company and that buybacks should rarely be made at the cost of the company's core business and never at the cost of the company's long term prosperity.