Strategy CEO Dismisses MSCI Deletion, Says 3% of Shares Are Index-Linked

Only about 3% of Strategy's shares are tied to MSCI indexes, a exposure level that Chief Executive Phong Le says makes the company's removal from three major MSCI benchmarks a limited event. Le made the remarks on CNBC on November 13, two days after MSCI announced the deletion in its regular index review.

MSCI said on November 11 that it will remove Strategy's Class A shares from the MSCI USA Index, with the change taking effect after the market close on November 30. The stock will also be deleted from the MSCI World Index and the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI), both of which include the U.S. index.

The decision follows MSCI's criteria for what it classifies as "non-operating companies." The index provider has been reviewing whether firms that create value primarily through asset holdings rather than business operations remain eligible, because such companies can resemble investment funds. Strategy, which finances Bitcoin purchases through stock and bond issuance, fits that profile.

Why does the removal matter for Strategy's funding model?

Index deletions typically trigger two mechanical consequences: passive funds that replicate the benchmarks must sell the excluded stock, and new capital inflows linked to those indexes dry up. For Strategy, the concern runs deeper than most companies. The firm depends on continuous issuance of equity and debt to fund Bitcoin acquisitions, so any sustained decline in share demand could tighten its funding conditions.

Le pushed back on that reading. He told CNBC the 3% index-linked share count would not pose a major problem and that the effect should be minimal. He framed the larger issue as one of principle rather than flows.

What did Le say about MSCI itself?

Le argued that index providers should not interfere in investment decisions involving specific assets. He said MSCI has maintained an anti-digital-asset stance for years and should act as an independent judge of the market rather than pick winners and losers.

He also criticized MSCI directly, saying it appeared to have concluded that investors should not invest in Bitcoin. That charge goes beyond Strategy's own case; it questions whether index governance can remain neutral when the underlying asset class is contested. MSCI has not publicly framed its criteria as asset-specific, and Le offered no evidence beyond his characterization of the provider's record.

What happens after November 30?

The removal takes effect after the market closes on November 30, giving index-tracking funds a defined window to complete rebalancing. How much selling actually materializes depends on how much of Strategy's float is held by MSCI-linked passive products, and the 3% figure, if accurate, bounds the direct passive outflow. The harder question is secondary: whether reduced index visibility weakens institutional demand for Strategy's future equity and debt issuances. Le's assurance covers the mechanics; it does not address that longer-horizon risk.