Strategy is about to be removed from the index this week. Will its coin-buying financing be affected?

Summary: Potential index removal risk could affect Bitcoin treasury companies' expansion through passive fund outflows and rising financing costs.

TL;DR

· MSCI is still evaluating the "non-operating companies" screening proposal, and Strategy and Metaplanet have not yet been formally announced for removal.

· Existing constituents have buffer arrangements, and the implementation of new rules in November does not mean the relevant companies will immediately exit the index.

· The scale of passive selling needs to be measured in conjunction with index weight, tracked funds, and implementation date.

· The deeper risk lies in declining financing efficiency: narrowing stock price premiums could weaken companies' ability to issue securities and increase Bitcoin holdings.

Simulated removal does not equal a formal decision

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

According to MSCI's announcement, consultation feedback closed on September 30, and results are 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. Currently verified materials have not yet shown a final removal decision.

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

For existing constituents, MSCI 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 exit timing of 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, 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 confirmed adjustment list.

Beyond passive selling, financing efficiency is more critical

Index eligibility is directly related 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 sufficient to estimate the selling amount. Actual capital flows depend on each stock's weight in the relevant index, free-float proportion, tracking fund size, and trading arrangements. The market pricing in adjustment expectations in advance 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 conditions 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 the company, the company may issue shares on more favorable terms. After the premium narrows, the accretion of new financing to Bitcoin holdings per share may decline; under unfavorable conditions, it may also increase dilution pressure on shareholders.

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

Having operating businesses does not necessarily mean avoiding the 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 revises or abandons the proposal, or the relevant companies pass the final test and avoid near-term index removal. 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 first things to watch going forward are the final thresholds, the buffer arrangements applicable to existing constituent stocks, and the specific adjustment list and implementation dates. Before this information is clear, any estimates of large capital outflows should be viewed with caution.

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

Join the official Coincamps community:

X: https://x.com/coincamps

Telegram: https://t.me/coin_camps