It would be instructive to look back and see what prices they've bought back at in recent years. I'm pretty sure that they bought back at MUCH higher prices than prevailing today. As opposed to a company like Apple whose buybacks have almost all been at much lower prices than prevailing today.

This is perhaps (?) the consequence of the concern I raise: Apple's buybacks were sensible (at the very least the earlier ones), because the business was a good one and the price was not excessive, so buybacks made sense. This is consistent with the price being higher today.

Conversely, perhaps SIRI's stock was not a great deal back then because the business was not a great one at the prevailing price, so the buybacks were not good capital allocation. This is consistent with the price being lower today.

For any company that owns an operating business and excess cash, even if the share price is currently fair, if the operating business is not a great one then a buyback isn't a great idea. It doesn't change the value of a share, but it increases the percentage of that share's value that is allocated to that ho-hum business unit. The capital allocation version of watering your weeds.

Jim