Why Could Strategy And Metaplanet Leave MSCI Indexes? Strategy and Metaplanet could be removed from MSCI’s Global Investable Market Indexes under a proposed methodology designed to identify c
Strategy and
Metaplanet could be removed from MSCI’s Global Investable Market Indexes under a proposed methodology designed to identify companies whose balance sheets are dominated by non-operating assets rather than traditional business operations. MSCI has opened a consultation on the new eligibility framework, expanding its review beyond digital asset treasury companies to cover non-operating companies more broadly. A simulation using May 2026 data showed that Strategy, Metaplanet and uranium investment company Yellow Cake would be removed from the MSCI ACWI IMI if the proposal were applied. SharpLink, Center Laboratories and Lydia Holding would be placed on a public watchlist under the same simulation. Strategy is by far the largest company affected. Its free-float-adjusted market capitalization was $23.9 billion in the May simulation, making its potential removal particularly important for funds that track MSCI benchmarks. The proposal follows an earlier decision by MSCI not to immediately exclude digital asset treasury companies. Instead, the index provider chose to examine whether a broader methodology could distinguish operating businesses from companies that primarily accumulate financial or other non-operating assets.
How Would MSCI Decide Which Companies Are Ineligible?
The proposed methodology uses a two-step process. MSCI would first examine whether a company has enough operating assets to qualify as an operating business. Companies that fail that initial test would then be assessed using five additional financial measures. Those measures are operating asset intensity, expense intensity, operating cash flow, fair value intensity and capital dependence. A company would become ineligible if it failed the core assessment and triggered at least four of the five exclusion flags. The proposed thresholds include operating assets below 20% of total assets, operating expenses below 5% of total assets, negative operating cash flow, non-operating fair value changes exceeding 5% of total assets and capital dependence above 20%. The framework is intended to identify companies that hold large amounts of non-operating assets, generate limited cash from their underlying businesses and rely heavily on external financing to expand those holdings. That structure is particularly relevant to Bitcoin treasury companies.
Strategy has built its business around accumulating Bitcoin while repeatedly accessing debt and equity markets to fund additional purchases. Metaplanet has adopted a similar treasury strategy on a smaller scale.
Investor Takeaway
The main risk is not a change in Bitcoin exposure itself. Removal from major MSCI indexes could force passive funds to sell affected stocks, adding an index-related source of selling pressure that is separate from the companies’ underlying crypto strategies.
How Large Could The Passive Outflow Risk Be?
The financial impact could be substantial if Strategy ultimately loses index eligibility. JPMorgan analysts estimated last year that removal from MSCI indexes could trigger about $2.8 billion in passive outflows as index-tracking funds adjust their holdings. Such selling would not necessarily reflect a change in investors’ views on Strategy or Bitcoin. Passive funds are designed to replicate benchmark composition, meaning they may be required to sell shares when a company is deleted regardless of valuation or market outlook. MSCI’s proposed rules include protections intended to reduce unnecessary turnover. Existing index members would face less stringent thresholds than companies seeking entry, and a current constituent would generally need to fail the eligibility screen for two consecutive annual filings before being removed. “Only a sustained change in business structure triggers reclassification, while a briefer, one-off threshold miss does not,” MSCI said in the consultation document. That provision gives existing constituents time to adjust their financial structure before deletion becomes unavoidable. For Bitcoin treasury companies, however, making those adjustments could conflict with a business model built around maximizing digital asset holdings relative to operating assets.
What Happens Next For Bitcoin Treasury Stocks?
The proposal does not currently alter any MSCI index. The index provider is collecting feedback from market participants through Sept. 30 and expects to announce the consultation results by Oct. 16. Until then, Strategy and Metaplanet remain exposed to uncertainty over whether the proposed framework will be adopted in its current form, modified or abandoned after industry feedback. The issue also extends beyond those two companies. If
MSCI adopts a general test based on operating assets, cash generation and dependence on external capital, other digital asset treasury companies could face similar scrutiny as they grow large enough to qualify for major equity indexes. For investors, that adds index eligibility to the existing risks surrounding Bitcoin prices, equity issuance and financing costs. Treasury companies can trade as leveraged proxies for their underlying digital assets, but their inclusion in major benchmarks also creates demand from passive investors that may disappear if their corporate structure no longer meets MSCI’s definition of an eligible operating company.
