Mentioned in This Article
1. What did MSCI decide on October 15?
MSCI said on Thursday, October 15, that it will adopt a methodology, first proposed in August, that makes "non-operating companies" ineligible for the MSCI Global Investable Market Indexes. Strategy (MSTR), Metaplanet and other digital asset treasury firms could be removed as a result. MSCI plans to publish its final list of deletions on November 11, 2026.
The announcement turns a proposal into policy. For months, companies whose balance sheets are dominated by crypto holdings had been waiting to learn whether the index provider would classify them as businesses that operate in the ordinary sense or as vehicles that mainly hold assets. With the rules now adopted, the question moves from principle to application: which specific companies fail the test, and how many of them are already members of the benchmark indexes that large pools of passive money follow.
Strategy, the software company that became the largest corporate holder of bitcoin, had already been named by MSCI for deletion under the approach. Other firms that built their business models around accumulating tokens on the balance sheet face the same possibility, which is why the decision is being read across the whole category of crypto treasury companies rather than as a single-company event.
2. How does the MSCI index exclusion test work?
The new framework judges a company on its operating assets and on five financial ratios. A company that fails at least four of those five tests can be deemed ineligible under the methodology. The design is meant to separate firms that earn their living from products and services from firms whose principal activity is holding an investment asset, whatever the size of their market capitalization.
Existing index members are given extra protection against sudden removal. As a general rule, a company that is already in an MSCI index must fail the screen across two annual reporting periods before it is taken out. That requirement is a buffer against turnover: a single poor year, or a single unusual balance sheet, does not by itself remove a constituent. It also means the timing of a firm's annual filings matters as much as the size of its crypto holdings.
Index providers generally set rules of this kind to keep a benchmark representative of the economy it claims to measure. A global equity index is supposed to capture operating businesses that investors can analyze through revenues, costs and cash flows. A company whose value moves mostly with a single digital asset behaves differently, and MSCI's methodology is its attempt to draw a line around that difference with measurable thresholds instead of case-by-case judgment.
3. Why does MSCI treat asset-holding companies differently?
An index provider has two competing aims. It wants a benchmark that reflects the investable market as it actually exists, and it wants one that remains stable enough for funds to track at reasonable cost. Companies that hold a single volatile asset as their main resource complicate both aims, because their share prices can swing with that asset instead of with the performance of a business, and because their weight in an index can change quickly when the asset moves.
The framework adopted on Thursday addresses that tension by testing what a company is made of. Operating assets, such as plants, software, inventory and receivables, point to a firm that produces goods or services. A balance sheet dominated by an investment holding points elsewhere. By combining the operating asset measure with five financial ratios, MSCI aims to avoid relying on a company's own description of its strategy and to apply the same yardstick to every issuer in its universe.
The approach also reflects how the market for corporate crypto holdings has grown. When only a few listed companies held digital assets, the question of how to classify them was academic. As more firms adopted treasury strategies, the aggregate amount of index-linked money exposed to the issue grew, and with it the pressure on providers to publish clear rules.
4. Which companies are affected?
Strategy is the most prominent name. MSCI had earlier identified it for deletion under this methodology, and the company is widely regarded as the benchmark example of a firm that holds bitcoin as its central treasury asset. Metaplanet, the Japanese company that follows a similar bitcoin-accumulation approach, was also among the firms previously flagged for removal.
The category extends beyond those two. Other crypto treasury companies also face possible exclusion under the rules, which is why the November 11 publication date matters to a broad group of listed firms and to the investors who hold them. Until MSCI releases the final list, the exact roster of deletions remains unconfirmed, and the outcome for any individual company will depend on how its financial statements perform against the five ratios.
For companies outside the digital asset sector, the adoption is largely a footnote. The label "non-operating" is not aimed at a particular industry in the abstract; it is a financial test, and a firm in any sector that fails it could be affected. In practice, however, the treasury firms that emerged during the recent period of corporate crypto accumulation are the ones most exposed, because their balance sheets are concentrated in a single asset class.
5. Why would an index deletion force funds to sell?
Funds that track an MSCI index are built to mirror its membership. When a company leaves the index, those funds must sell their holdings of it to keep matching the benchmark, regardless of the company's business prospects or the fund manager's view of its value. That mechanical selling can weigh on the share price around the effective date.
The impact is not limited to selling pressure. Index inclusion also acts as a steady source of demand, because every dollar that flows into a tracking fund is allocated in proportion to the index weights. Once a company is removed, that automatic bid disappears. Analysts therefore describe an index exclusion as both a one-time supply event and a lasting reduction in passive investment demand for the stock.
This is why a decision about classification rules can matter to a share price even when nothing about the company's operations has changed. The business, the balance sheet and the bitcoin holdings are the same the day after the announcement as the day before; what changes is whether a large and price-insensitive category of buyers is still required to own the shares.
6. How large could the selling be?
Estimates vary with the scope of the rules being measured. JPMorgan analysts had calculated that excluding Strategy could trigger roughly $2.8 billion of selling. That figure was prepared for MSCI's earlier digital asset proposal, not for the methodology adopted on Thursday, so it should be read as an indication of scale rather than a forecast tied to the final rules.
Strategy has offered its own, much smaller picture. In August, the company opposed the changes but played down their consequences, saying that index funds tracking the MSCI indexes hold about 13 million of its shares, equal to 3.1% of its basic shares outstanding. It argued that this quantity is less than a single day's trading volume in the stock, which would mean the market could absorb the sales without lasting disruption.
The two views are not necessarily contradictory. A holding that is small relative to a day of turnover can still move a price if the selling is concentrated around one date, and a dollar estimate that looks large in isolation can look modest against the liquidity of a heavily traded stock. Which description proves closer to reality will become clearer only after MSCI confirms the final list and the effective date approaches.
7. What are critics and defenders of the rules saying?
The rules have drawn criticism from supporters of digital asset treasury companies. Conner Brown, executive director of the Bitcoin Policy Institute, said in September that excluding a company from an index removes it from the default portfolios of many people who never chose that outcome. He pointed to Strategy as his example, framing the issue as one of everyday savers being steered out of an investment by a classification decision made by a private index provider.
That argument touches a wider debate about the influence of index providers. Because trillions of dollars in retirement and investment accounts are benchmarked to a handful of indexes, the eligibility criteria those providers write can shape corporate capital flows without any vote by regulators or shareholders. Supporters of the new rules answer that an index has to apply consistent, published standards, and that treating asset-holding vehicles differently from operating companies is a legitimate way to preserve a benchmark's meaning.
Strategy's own response in August combined both elements. It objected to the changes while arguing that their effect on the company would be limited, a position that reflects the company's view that its operating software business and its treasury strategy should not be treated as a single category.
8. What happens next for Strategy and other treasury firms?
The next milestone is November 11, 2026, when MSCI is scheduled to announce its final list of removals. That list will settle which companies fail the screen and which keep their places. Investors holding crypto treasury shares, as well as managers of funds that track MSCI benchmarks, will be watching for the names and for any confirmation of when the changes take effect.
Between now and that date, affected companies can still influence the outcome only through their reported financials, since the test relies on operating assets and the five ratios rather than on stated strategy. For existing members, the two-period rule means that a failure must be repeated across annual reporting periods before removal, which is the mechanism MSCI has put in place to avoid abrupt changes.
The broader significance is that a major index provider has now written the distinction between operating and non-operating companies into its eligibility rules. Whatever the final list contains, the methodology sets a standard that digital asset treasury firms will be measured against in future review cycles, and it gives the sector a concrete financial test to plan around.