Simulated removal does not equal a formal decision

MSCI is evaluating a broader set of screening rules for "non-operating companies." For listed companies such as Strategy and Metaplanet that rely on capital markets financing to continuously accumulate bitcoin, index eligibility faces new uncertainty.

According to MSCI's announcement, consultation feedback closed on September 30, with results expected to be published no later than October 16; if the proposal is adopted, it is planned to be implemented in the November 2026 index review. Materials verified so far have not yet shown a final removal decision.

The proposed rules are divided into two steps: first, determining whether an issuer has substantial operating assets; companies that fail the initial screening then undergo a five-factor financial ratio test, and if four of them hit exclusion criteria, they will not be eligible for index inclusion.

For existing constituents, MSCI has also proposed thresholds and a time buffer, requiring failure of the screening for two consecutive periods before removal. Therefore, even if the new methodology is implemented in November, the timing of specific companies' exit still depends on the final rules, financial data, and buffer arrangements.

According to simulation results disclosed around the proposal, based on data as of May 2026, Strategy, Metaplanet, and uranium investment company Yellow Cake would be excluded from the MSCI All Country World Investable Market Index (ACWI IMI). This result reflects the potential impact of the proposal and cannot be regarded as a finalized list of adjustments.

Beyond passive selling, financing efficiency is more critical

Index eligibility is directly tied to demand for a portion of shares. After a company is removed, passive funds replicating the relevant index usually need to adjust holdings; active funds benchmarked to the index may also reassess allocations.

But the consultation proposal itself is not enough to estimate the selling amount. Actual capital flows depend on individual stocks' weights in the relevant indices, free-float proportions, the scale of tracking funds, and trading arrangements. The market trading ahead of the adjustment expectations may also spread the price impact before the official effective date.

For Bitcoin treasury companies, what deserves more attention is the chain reaction on the financing side.

Strategy and Metaplanet raise funds by issuing shares and other capital market instruments, then use part of the proceeds to increase their Bitcoin holdings. If a potential index adjustment depresses share prices and weakens liquidity, the terms for new financing may 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 Bitcoin. When the market is willing to pay an extra premium for the Bitcoin held by a company, the company may issue shares on relatively favorable terms. After the premium narrows, the gain in Bitcoin holdings per share from new financing may decline; under unfavorable conditions, it could also increase dilution pressure on shareholders.

This is a potential transmission path, and it does not mean that index removal will necessarily lead to companies selling Bitcoin. The ultimate impact also depends on financing instruments, cash reserves, and debt arrangements.

Having operating businesses does not necessarily mean avoiding screening

To judge index eligibility, one cannot look only at how much Bitcoin a company holds, nor can one assume it can pass the screening merely because it still has operating businesses.

Strategy's 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 as of 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 figure.

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 flows, 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 near-term removal from the index. Even if removal occurs, active funds may absorb part of the passive selling.

The unfavorable scenario is that the final rules trigger removal after a buffer period, with liquidity and valuation premiums under pressure at the same time, further weakening financing efficiency and slowing the pace of Bitcoin accumulation.

Therefore, the immediate focus should be on the final thresholds, the buffer arrangements applicable to existing constituent stocks, as well as the specific adjustment list and implementation dates. Until this information is clear, any estimates of large capital outflows should be treated with caution.

For the investment logic of such companies, the question will further 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?

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia