🟠 JPM - MSTR: Which side is correct?

📌JPMorgan has sparked a controversy by claiming that MicroStrategy no longer qualifies to be included in ETFs and blue-chip indices such as NASDAQ100, MSCI USA.
Their argument is very clear: MSTR is no longer an operating business but has become a Bitcoin holding fund in disguise.

📌This is completely justified:
- Revenue from MSTR's "non-crypto" business is ~$475M/year - only accounting for 5% of the value that the market is pricing.
- The rest is Bitcoin.
acquire USD

=> From this perspective, JPM is completely right in saying that MSTR is a leveraged BTC ETF but is even less transparent than an ETF.

📌 The reason JPM believes that #MSTR should be removed from the index is that MSCI is considering a new rule: Companies with >50% of their assets in crypto will not be considered operating companies for inclusion in the index.
- If excluded from MSCI USA, the estimated passive capital outflow is ~ $2.8B
the number could rise to ~$8.8B
JPM believes that this is not related to an anti-BTC stance but rather a structural issue: MSTR no longer meets the standards of traditional stocks.

📌 The actual situation also shows that MSTR has underperformed #BTC in recent months, the premium has plummeted, and the leverage of the Strategy has revealed its fatal weaknesses.
JPM believes that if Bitcoin drops another ~15%, MSTR's entire BTC position could fall into a net loss zone, making the fundraising model more difficult.

📌 But it is necessary to clearly distinguish the unfounded FUD on current social media.
- JPM short MSTR
- Customers are canceling JPM accounts en masse.

=> This move also partly stems from the fact that JPM CEO Jamie Dimon is anti-Bitcoin (, claiming that Bitcoin is the scam of the century ), despite JPM still offering crypto-related products.
In this regard, I see JPM as correct. MSTR's model will win in the long term, as long as it balances leverage to get through the bear season, but Strategy's model is clearly not a traditional company.