What I was saying with the &quot;destroyed&quot; was something like a reverse stock split. (Your proportional ownership stays the same, but your number of shares reduce.) The idea I was communicating that the number of shares itself is not a meaningful judge of anything unless you understand what those shares represent.<p>If covenants are not in place, you could also &quot;destroy&quot; the proportional ownership of shares by diluting down to a negligible value.<p>I guess what I&#x27;m saying is that people should always be sure they can trust management, ask for a cap table and probably consult a lawyer.