MSCI's own simulation drops Strategy and Metaplanet as non-operating companies
MSCI's Aug. 3 proposal to drop "non-operating companies" from its indexes would remove Strategy and Metaplanet, according to MSCI's own simulation. JPMorgan analysts put Strategy's potential outflows from benchmark-tracking funds at about $2.8 billion in 2025.
The Investor · Invest desk
What happened
- A Bitcoin Policy Institute paper, Wall Street's Invisible Committee, cites metadata showing the presentation behind MSCI's consultation sat in an internal folder for digital asset treasury companies.
- MSCI had proposed excluding digital asset treasury companies in 2025, then shelved the plan in January after pushback and said it would review non-operating companies more broadly.
- The new method first asks whether a company has substantial operating assets, then applies five additional financial tests.
- BPI notes that "operating assets" is not a standardized balance-sheet category under US GAAP or IFRS.
Why it matters
- What it limits constraint A deferral would not reopen index demand for the affected treasury companies, since MSCI's interim limits on new additions stay in force while the review runs.
- Who's exposed exposure BPI argues that mines and satellite networks, businesses that can carry large assets and outside financing for years before revenue, could fail the same first screen as Strategy.
- Who has to decide decision MSCI has to choose between publishing clearer, reproducible criteria, as BPI asks, and keeping a first screen whose asset classifications only MSCI makes.
Next story · Invest · 17h ago
MSCI's new screen could remove Strategy and Metaplanet from its global indexes after Nov. 30Confirmed11 publishers
MSCI announced this lineage itself in January [1]. A source presentation stored in a treasury-company folder [3] fits the sequence the company made public. The Bitcoin Policy Institute's claim is narrower than a charge of renaming: it said the finding "warrants asking whether its broader language carried forward" MSCI's earlier effort to exclude digital asset treasury companies [4]. MSCI had not answered Cointelegraph's request for comment by publication [17].
The simulation results tell you more than the folder name does. The same simulation that removes Strategy and Metaplanet also removes Yellow Cake, a uranium investment company [6]. MSCI says the test is meant to identify companies whose value comes mainly from accumulating assets instead of from revenue-generating operations [9]. A uranium holder fits that description as well as a bitcoin holder does. Yellow Cake is MSCI's best evidence that the screen reaches beyond crypto, and it is one name.
For the cash, the question is who has to hold the shares. JPMorgan's 2025 outflow estimate is about 20 times the $143 million Strategy spent on 1,665 bitcoin in a purchase Cointelegraph reported [7][18][19]. A deletion would not touch the 847,666 bitcoin Strategy holds [18]. It would change which funds are obliged to own the stock, and the price at which other buyers take the shares those funds sell [16].
MSCI can adopt the method as simulated, with removals at its November 2026 Index Review [15]. It can rewrite the operating-asset screen after the feedback round. Or it can defer. I think the rule as drafted is the January exclusion with a uranium company added. The folder confirms a history MSCI disclosed when it shelved the first plan [1][3]. The view is wrong if MSCI's final run removes more asset-heavy companies outside crypto. It holds if the list that comes out of the feedback round is still the three names in MSCI's current simulation [6].
What to watch
- MSCI's results, due on or before Oct. 16 after feedback closed Sept. 30, and whether the operating-asset screen survives unchanged.
- Any MSCI reply to the folder metadata cited in the Bitcoin Policy Institute paper.
Information, not investment advice. This story is general information about companies and markets, drawn from cited reporting. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security; check the cited sources before acting.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence60
- Adoption
- Not scored
- Hype gap+15
- Incentives65
- Confidence62
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
MSCI first proposed excluding digital asset treasury companies from its global indexes in 2025, but shelved the plan in January after pushback and said it would instead review "non-operating companies" more broadly.
- [2]
On Aug. 3, MSCI returned with a wider proposal that could still remove Strategy and Metaplanet from its indexes.
- [3]
In a research paper titled Wall Street's Invisible Committee, the Bitcoin Policy Institute pointed to metadata showing that the source presentation behind MSCI's consultation was stored in an internal folder for digital asset treasury companies.
- [4]
BPI said the finding "warrants asking whether its broader language carried forward" MSCI's earlier effort to exclude digital asset treasury companies.
- [5]
Under the broader proposal, MSCI would first assess whether a company has substantial operating assets before applying five additional financial tests.
- [6]
MSCI's own simulation showed that Strategy, Metaplanet and uranium investment company Yellow Cake would be removed under the proposed methodology.
- [7]
In 2025, JPMorgan analysts estimated Strategy could face about $2.8 billion in outflows if it were excluded.
- [8]
After shelving its crypto-specific proposal in January, MSCI kept interim restrictions on affected digital asset treasury companies, including limits on new additions to its indexes, while it developed the broader review.
- [9]
MSCI has said the new test is intended to identify companies whose value comes mainly from accumulating assets rather than from revenue-generating operations.
- [10]
BPI noted that "operating assets" is not a standardized balance-sheet category under US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or International Financial Reporting Standards.
- [11]
According to BPI, the lack of a standard definition could give MSCI significant discretion in how it classifies assets such as cash, investments, construction projects and strategic holdings.
- [12]
BPI said the issue could extend beyond crypto, arguing that capital-intensive businesses such as mines or satellite networks may hold large amounts of assets and rely on outside financing for years before generating revenue.
- [13]
BPI called on MSCI to publish clearer and reproducible criteria for determining which companies qualify for its broad-market indexes.
- [14]
MSCI accepted feedback through Sept. 30 and said it expects to announce the results on or before Oct. 16.
- [15]
Any resulting changes are proposed to take effect as part of MSCI's November 2026 Index Review.
- [16]
Removing crypto treasury firms like Strategy or Metaplanet from MSCI indexes could force funds that track those benchmarks to sell their shares.
- [17]
Cointelegraph reached out to MSCI for comment but had not received a response before publication.
- [18]
Cointelegraph reported that Strategy bought 1,665 bitcoin for $143 million, bringing its holdings to 847,666 bitcoin.
- [19]
JPMorgan's estimated $2.8 billion Strategy outflow is about 20 times the $143 million Strategy spent on its reported 1,665-bitcoin purchase.
Sources
2 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.
- cointelegraph.comBitcoin think tank questions MSCI’s ‘invisible committee’ over Strategy, Metaplanet rule
1 article · September 30, 2026
- cryptopolitan.comBitcoin Policy Institute pushes Congress to grill MSCI over Strategy exclusion plot
1 article · October 1, 2026
Topics and entities
Topics
- Passive Investing and ETFs
- Digital Asset Treasury Companies
- Index inclusion rules
Entities
- Strategy
- Metaplanet
- SharpLink
- MSCI
- J.P. Morgan
- Bitcoin Policy Institute
- MSCI ACWI IMI Index