MicroStrategy has opposed Morgan Stanley Capital International's (MSCI) proposal to remove companies with significant Bitcoin from major stock indices. They argue that the rule incorrectly treats these companies as investment funds.
The answer came after JPMorgan warned that this could lead to sales of several billion USD. Therefore, Strategy found itself in a larger debate about how to handle Bitcoin exposure on the stock market.
Strategy defends its business model
Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) issued a statement on Wednesday claiming that MSCI's proposal presented a false picture of how companies with significant Bitcoin actually operate.
In a twelve-page letter signed by chairman Michael Saylor and CEO Phong Le, the company explains that they are an operating company that uses its Bitcoin reserves to issue credit instruments and raise capital.
They argue that this is completely different from just following the price of a single asset without doing anything active.
"We urge MSCI to reject the proposal. It is based on a gross misunderstanding of DATs and would impose arbitrary, impractical rules that stifle innovation, damage MSCI's index reputation, and go against national interests," it states.
Strategy also says that the proposed limit of 50% digital assets is unfair. They believe that the rule singles them out, while leaving similar sectors like oil or real estate.
Advisory puts Bitcoin assets at risk
The discussion began in October when MSCI initiated a consultation on how they should assess digital asset funds (DATs) in their index methodology. The proposed 50% requirement led directly to scrutiny of Strategy and other companies focused on Bitcoin.
In November, an analysis from JPMorgan estimated that Strategy could face about 2.8 billion USD in forced sales if MSCI removed them. The total amount could reach up to 8–9 billion USD if more players do the same.
These figures created more concern and prompted more discussions on how to classify companies with Bitcoin on their balance sheets across the index world.
For Strategy, this could have greater consequences than just losing a spot in the index.
If they are removed, liquidity decreases and it becomes more expensive for the company to borrow money. This complicates the ability for investors to gain indirect access to Bitcoin through the companies' balance sheets.
For investors, the issue also highlights an important structural question: should Bitcoin exposure mainly exist in regulated exchange-traded funds or through publicly listed companies with digital assets?
MSCI's consultation is open until December 31, and the market is closely monitoring developments while waiting for MSCI's final decision.
