I read this ar Seeking Alpha
"Holly was yielding something in the neighborhood of 7% with its quarterly $0.50 special dividend. While appealing in a rate-starved environment, buybacks are ultimately a more tax efficient way of returning cash to shareholders. I think a 3% yield is sufficient for an investor seeking total returns, but this definitely decreases the appeal to income investors. Personally, I'd like management to allocate capital as efficiently as possible, and I tend to believe the buyback simply provides better flexibility and opportunity at this time.
that special dividend was money in my pocket now. it also made HFC special. maybe a buyback more "tax efficient" long term but the writer saying he "believes it" isn't really an argument. If HFC has some M&A plans, I can live with that but cancelling it for a bigger buyback. As other posters have noted, they had a buyback plan already. Why didn't they use it when the stock was in the low 30s? wouldn't that be more "efficient"?