Professional Bitcoin ownership in the first leg of the bear, Q4 2025

• Professionals largely held firm through the first leg of Bitcoin’s drawdown. Despite a 23% Q4 price decline, global bitcoin ETF flows remained positive (+$3.7bn), AUM contraction was primarily price-driven, and full-year professional ETF ownership grew 32%, outpacing the broader ETF investor base.

• Cohort rotation, not capitulation, defined Q4. Advisors and hedge funds trimmed exposure likely amid rebalancing and leverage unwinds, while endowments and sovereigns continued to quietly build their positions.

• Individual holding changes showcase mixed opinions. Large allocators such as Brevan Howard, Farallon, Tudor, and Harvard reduced positions, while Millennium, Morgan Stanley, a UAE sovereign wealth fund, and a fourth university entrant (Dartmouth) added exposure; altogether, making for a rotation among existing holders and a growing number of institutional participants.

Bitcoin is 50% below the $126k all time high price set in October 2025. All the attention lately appears to be about where the bottom will settle, and who may have gone belly up in the process.

A drawdown of this magnitude, capitalized with a single day decline of 17%, inevitably raises questions about market leverage, who may have been caught offsides, and whether forced sellers have already been flushed out.

But, perhaps more interesting from a long-term view, is who held strong?

Which cohorts of professionals that entered the bitcoin market following the US ETF approvals, are no different than each class of retail savers that entered in 2013, 2017, 2021? Are ETF investors as price-insensitive as the HODLers that came before them?

Unlike retail investors, whose behaviors must be inferred from on-chain heuristics, professional investors disclose holdings through SEC 13F filings. These disclosures arrive with a lag, mandated 45 days following each quarter’s end, but they provide one of the cleanest windows into the positioning of institutional investors.

While we will not have visibility into the most recent pullback into the $60k range until mid-May, we now can analyze behavior following the first leg of the drawdown, throughout Q4 2025, when bitcoin declined nearly 25%.

Through the SEC 13F Filings, we’ll now look to tell the story of which cohorts of professionals sold, who weathered the storm, and the changes to individual holdings that stuck out.

Q4 2025: Filers are net sellers. Bitcoin Price falls 23%. Net Flows total +3.7bn

Despite the sharp price decline, global ETF flows were moderately positive in Q4 2025, though well below the heightened Q3 net flows of roughly US$24 billion. Based on our read of on-chain supply movements, the bulk of market selling likely came from long-time bitcoin holders, whereas ETF holders mainly took the volatility in their stride, holding strong.

The total AUM across US bitcoin ETFs reduced by nearly 25%, which can almost entirely be attributed to price, given the 23% pullback.

Stripping out SEC filers, the rest of the ETF holders sold slightly more, but largely followed the same story at a -26% reduction in AUM, compared to -24% for professional filers. 

When zooming out to the full year, however, professional investment far outpaces the rest of ETF investors, growing 32% compared to 18%. As we’ll continue to see, 2025 was certainly a year when bitcoin ownership grew among professional money managers.

Hedge funds and advisors reduce exposure, while endowments and governments quietly increase

Looking at holdings on a BTC-equivalent basis by type of institution, the hierarchy remains the same as the past year. Advisors are driving the bulk of exposure, followed by hedge funds and brokerages.

While reducing exposure in Q4, advisors still account for the majority of 13F bitcoin holdings, amounting to 50–60% of reported exposure throughout 2025.

The reduction is possibly attributable to rebalancing bitcoin positions back to a target weight in the early days of the quarter, or a general de-risking as interest rate cut expectations decreased and leverage heightened in bitcoin markets. 

After Q4 selling, advisor bitcoin exposure remains materially higher than 2024 levels, up 34.7% YoY, showing up as the most consistent buyers since the US ETFs launched.

Hedge fund exposure declined nearly 10%, which tracked our expectations given the intra-quarter leverage cleanse, not-so-attractive basis trade environment, and tactical opportunities presented in minerals, AI, and precious metals. These types of opportunistic cohorts may well show up in decline again when the Q1 2026 reports are released, for similar reasons.

Banks and brokerages have shown mixed behavior. Looking at the two collectively, investors may be enthused to see the likes of major wirehouses and independent broker dealers having exposure. Particularly, following the Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Q4 announcements, which opened up advisors’ solicitation of bitcoin ETFs as well as provided guidance on allocation sizing. 

Lastly, endowments, pensions, and governments, who quietly and consistently appear to be building their exposure.

This collective remains smaller in absolute size but has the highest total addressable market (TAM), and continues trending higher both QoQ and YoY. While Q4 did not show an explosive headline increase, several new entrants filed and some existing allocations increased. These are, of course, among the most disciplined allocators with the longest of time horizons, making them somewhat of a north star cohort for investors with the highest adoption expectations and most ambitious long-term targets.

Morgan Stanley adds, Harvard trims, and the curious case of an offshore holding company

At the individual level, Q4 could be characterized by rotation among existing allocators.

Overall, we notice notable allocators both trimming and adding.

Brevan Howard is one of the most established global macro hedge funds globally so a reduction of this size (-17.7k BTC) stood out. Farallon (-2.8k BTC), likewise, is a large multi strategy hedge fund with a long track record. Tudor Investment Corp (-1.3k BTC) is Paul Tudor Jones’ firm, which we saw as symbolically relevant, given he has publicly been supportive of bitcoin, and was relatively early in framing it as a macro hedge. Royal Bank of Canada (-0.9k BTC), or RBC, is one of the largest global banks and a major wealth platform, their position was fully exited. Harvard Management Company (-0.8k BTC), which oversees one of the most closely watched endowments globally, reduced its position by roughly 20%. However, this one may simply be routine rebalancing within a broader actively managed portfolio, as the endowment still maintains a $265m position.

On the buyer side, Millennium (+8.1k BTC) is one of the largest multi manager hedge fund platforms and has frequently ranked among the largest 13F filers by position size, continuing that trend this quarter. The Emirate of Abu Dhabi (+2.3k BTC), representing the Mubadala sovereign wealth fund, continues to fortify the fascinating interests from the Middle East. Morgan Stanley (+1.9k BTC) is arguably the most forward leaning U.S. wirehouse on bitcoin access, and its growing exposure aligns with its broader push into client solicitation. The Trustees of Dartmouth (+ 0.1 BTC) add another name to the list of university exposures, making three of eight Ivy League schools. Laurore Ltd (+5.0 BTC) is a wildcard, a new filer that has drawn speculation about potential Chinese capital using offshore structures, which if accurate could become a meaningful demand vector, though likely also increasingly opaque should the connections be uncovered publicly.

The bigger picture bear market will unveil institutional confidence (or not)

The first leg of this drawdown has not revealed any panic among professional allocators.

Advisors trimmed but remain strongly invested versus last year. Hedge funds reduced exposure in line with the leverage unwind and outside market opportunities presented. Endowments, pensions, and sovereigns continued to build quietly. 

Meanwhile, global bitcoin ETF flows remained positive despite a 23% price decline.

The bulk of Q4 selling appears to have stemmed from long-time holders taking profit rather than a wholesale exit from newly onboarded institutional capital.

That distinction is one we are keen to follow as Bitcoin moves through its current stage of maturity, increasingly integrating into traditional financial systems. If ownership continues pivoting toward wealth management platforms and institutions, its investment characteristics are likely pivoting alongside it. Changes in market participants can influence volatility, correlation, and performance dynamics, even though they do not alter how the Bitcoin protocol itself functions.

Historically, bear markets have served as times of supply redistribution. In prior cycles, supply migrated from short-term speculators to long-term savers. What we are now observing through 13F disclosures is whether ETF-era capital behaves differently, or whether it follows the same psychological arc as retail cohorts before it.

So far, the evidence leans toward more of the same, with a skew toward long-term savers. A 25% quarterly drawdown did not trigger institutional capitulation. AUM contraction was largely price-driven. Professional ownership grew materially over the full year. Perhaps most notably, the cohorts with the longest duration mandates, endowments, pensions, and sovereign wealth funds, continue to trudge exposure higher.

But the sample size is not large enough yet to draw hard and fast conclusions. If the future rhymes with the past, the real test has yet to truly arrive.

The move into the $60k range, the single-day 17% decline, and any associated leverage fallout will not be visible in filings until mid-May. At the time of writing, year-to-date net flows of global bitcoin ETFs total -1.3 billion USD.

Bitcoin’s long-term trajectory is of course not determined by a single quarter of flows. But how new cohorts of investors behave during periods of stress can inform us about their likelihood of long-term adoption.

What share of ETF flows have stemmed from a committed approach to a disciplined, long-term strategy? Are advisors continuing to rebalance methodically or wholesale exit? Are major wirehouses and brokerages stalling or in accumulation? Do sovereign and pension capital remain steady buyers? Or did the second leg of bitcoin’s drawdown fully squander conviction?

If professionals continue to treat drawdowns as volatility rather than invalidation, this cycle may ultimately be remembered for the institutional composure displayed on the way down. If ETF-era ownership proves momentum-driven and reflexive, the unwind will show up clearly in the filings ahead.