According to Woofun AI, global index compiler MSCI (MSCI.US) is conducting a comprehensive review of its screening rules for "non-operating companies," a move that directly targets listed firms such as Strategy (MSTR.US) and Metaplanet that rely on capital market financing to continuously accumulate Bitcoin, putting their index eligibility under unprecedented uncertainty.
Based on rule details and the timeline compiled by Woofun AI, MSCI's consultation feedback period closed on September 30, with the final result expected to be announced by October 16 at the latest; if the new proposal is adopted, it is planned to be formally implemented in the November 2026 index review. The materials disclosed so far do not yet show a final exclusion decision, but the proposed rules establish a strict two-step screening mechanism: first, determine whether the issuer has substantial operating assets; companies that fail the initial screening must undergo five financial ratio tests, and if four of them hit the exclusion criteria, they will lose index inclusion eligibility.
For existing constituents, MSCI has proposed threshold and time buffer requirements, stipulating that a company must fail the screening for two consecutive periods before being removed. Therefore, even if the new methodology is implemented in November, the exact exit timing for specific companies still depends on the final rules, financial data, and buffer arrangements. According to simulation results disclosed around the proposal, based on data from May 2026, Strategy (MSTR.US), Metaplanet, and uranium investment company Yellow Cake would be excluded from MSCI's All Country World Investable Market Index (ACWI IMI). While this result cannot be regarded as a confirmed adjustment list, it clearly reflects the potential impact of the proposal.
Changes in index eligibility will trigger a chain reaction through market transmission mechanisms, directly affecting fund flows of both passive and active funds. After a company is removed, passive funds tracking the relevant index typically need to adjust their holdings; active funds benchmarked to the index may also reassess their allocations. However, the consultation proposal itself is insufficient to estimate selling amounts, as actual capital flows depend on a stock's weight in the relevant index, free-float ratio, scale of tracked funds, and trading arrangements. The market trading ahead of adjustment expectations may also spread the price impact before the official effective date.
For Bitcoin reserve companies, what deserves more attention is the chain reaction on the financing side. Strategy (MSTR.US) and Metaplanet raise funds by issuing shares and other capital market instruments, then use part of the proceeds to increase their Bitcoin holdings. If potential index adjustments depress share prices and weaken liquidity, the terms for new financing could deteriorate: raising the same amount of capital would require issuing more shares, or offering investors higher returns. This change is also related to the premium of shares relative to the net asset value of their Bitcoin. When the market is willing to pay an extra premium for the Bitcoin a company holds, the company may issue shares on more favorable terms. Once the premium narrows, the boost to Bitcoin holdings per share from new financing may decline; under unfavorable conditions, shareholder dilution pressure could also increase. This is a potential transmission path, and it does not mean that index exclusion will necessarily lead to the company selling Bitcoin; the ultimate impact also depends on financing instruments, cash reserves, and debt arrangements.
Holdings data provides further evidence of the complexity of the investment logic. Strategy's (MSTR.US) second-quarter financial report showed that as of July 26, the company held 843,775 Bitcoins, with a market value of approximately $54.77 billion based on the reference price used in the report. This is data for a specific date and does not represent the current holding size. Metaplanet's official tracking page shows that as of September 30 it held 44,000 Bitcoins, an increase of 1,000 from 43,000 at the end of June. The 43,000 figure in the materials provided by the user is already an earlier reading. These holdings data help in understanding the company's asset structure, but whether it can ultimately retain index eligibility still depends on how operating assets, cash flow, and financing activities fall into the final test framework.
The more favorable scenario is that MSCI modifies or abandons the proposal, or the relevant companies pass the final test and avoid a near-term exit from the index. Even if exclusion occurs, active funds may absorb part of the passive selling. The unfavorable scenario is that the final rules trigger exclusion after the buffer period, with liquidity and valuation premium under pressure at the same time, further weakening financing efficiency and slowing the pace of Bitcoin accumulation. Therefore, the next things to watch first are the final thresholds, the buffer arrangements applicable to existing constituents, and the specific adjustment list and implementation date. Before this information is clear, any estimate of large capital outflows should be viewed with caution. For the investment logic of such companies, the question will also increasingly come down to the capital markets: beyond Bitcoin price volatility, can they continue to raise funds on favorable terms and turn additional holdings into growth in value per share?
Comments