Strategy Urges MSCI to Withdraw Proposed Index Exclusion Rule

Strategy disputes MSCI’s accounting framework

Strategy’s main objection centers on MSCI’s use of “operating” and “non-operating” company classifications. Strategy said those categories have no recognized basis in U.S. GAAP, IFRS or an established legal framework, making MSCI’s treatment dependent on its own index methodology rather than conventional financial-reporting standards.

MSCI’s consultation, opened in August 2026, applies to companies whose operating assets fall below half of total assets. Those issuers are then assessed across five financial tests covering operating-asset intensity, expenses, cash flow, fair-value movements and reliance on external financing. A company that triggers four of those five flags becomes ineligible for the indexes, while an existing constituent must fail during two consecutive annual reviews before deletion.

Strategy argues that its own financial reporting does not support MSCI’s proposed classification. The company reports its Bitcoin treasury operations as a separate operating segment under U.S. GAAP and said that treatment is consistent with discussions with SEC staff.

Strategy’s second-quarter Form 10-Q, filed Aug. 3, defines Bitcoin treasury operations as a separate reportable operating segment and records Bitcoin fair-value changes within operating expenses. Saylor and Le argued that this treatment means Strategy does not trigger either MSCI’s expense flag or its fair-value flag.

Bitcoin-related expenses exceed 5% of Strategy’s total assets, while Bitcoin fair-value changes are treated as operating expenses rather than changes in non-operating assets. Strategy said that accounting treatment means it does not trigger four of MSCI’s five exclusion flags.

Strategy also warned that inserting MSCI’s own policy judgments into index construction could create fiduciary concerns for institutions that track its benchmarks. The company said the proposal also raises questions under European Union benchmark rules and IOSCO transparency principles.

MSCI simulation identifies six affected companies

MSCI tested the proposed methodology against ACWI IMI data from May 2026 and identified three companies that would be deleted and another three that would be placed on a public watchlist.

Strategy represents roughly 87% of the float-adjusted market value across the six identified companies. Strategy’s letter focused on the three crypto-related companies in the group and argued that the rule’s practical effect falls disproportionately on digital-asset treasury businesses.

Funds tracking MSCI’s Global Investable Market Indexes hold about 3.1% of Strategy’s basic shares outstanding. Saylor and Le said the proposed rule would have no meaningful effect on Strategy’s business but could “profoundly” damage MSCI’s reputation as a neutral index provider.

JPMorgan analysts estimated in November 2025 that an MSCI exclusion could cause $2.8 billion of outflows from MSTR. They estimated potential outflows could reach $11.6 billion if other major index providers adopted similar treatment.

Saylor and Le had made a similar appeal in December 2025, when they warned MSCI that excluding crypto treasury companies could harm U.S. national security. Their latest letter also asked MSCI to place a legal hold on documents related to the development of the proposed eligibility test.

MSCI decision timeline and MSTR market levels

The consultation process is scheduled to move through three remaining milestones.

MSTR was trading near $129 in premarket activity on Sept. 1 after closing the previous session at $132.94, up 4.42%. The technical assessment identified the $135-to-$137 area as resistance, with the 100-day exponential moving average at $122.83 as the nearest support. A move back above $135 was identified as confirmation of continuation toward $150.