Bitcoin ETF Risk Their First Negative Year In 2026

American bitcoin ETFs recorded $95 million in withdrawals on November 10, their fourth consecutive negative session. However, the movement does not reflect a uniform flight: sales are mainly concentrated in the most liquid funds, while several products remain stable and Morgan Stanley’s continues to attract capital.

Bitcoin: four withdrawal sessions erase three weeks of respite

The twelve spot Bitcoin ETFs listed in the United States now total more than $1.1 billion in net outflows since the beginning of 2026. Three weeks earlier, their annual balance still showed about $1.43 billion in inflows.

The reversal therefore reaches nearly $2.5 billion in a few weeks. Of the first seven sessions of November, six ended in the red, with about $1.58 billion in withdrawals.

The latest figures show a rapid deterioration :

• $95 million were withdrawn on November 10 ;
• The negative streak reaches four consecutive sessions ;
• November totals nearly $1.58 billion in withdrawals ;
• Net assets of the funds still represent $92.8 billion ;
• Their cumulative total since January 2024 remains positive at $55.5 billion.

The contrast with previous years is significant. At the same time in 2025, ETFs had attracted about $24.7 billion since January, compared to $25.8 billion in 2024. Their current trajectory therefore shows a lag close to $25.7 billion compared to 2025’s pace.

If outflows continue through December, 2026 could become the first negative year since the launch of these products in the United States. However, this scenario is not yet certain: a few important sessions can quickly change the annual balance, as shown by the inflow of $527 million recorded on October 20.

BlackRock becomes the market’s exit door

The composition of flows provides more important information than their overall amount. Of the $95 million withdrawn on November 10, BlackRock’s IBIT fund lost $78.2 million and Fidelity’s FBTC $36.8 million. Conversely, Morgan Stanley’s MSBT received $20 million.

The nine other products recorded neither net creation nor redemption of shares. The negative day therefore does not correspond to a generalized panic movement among all holders of ETFs.

IBIT concentrates most of the recent pressure. The fund has experienced seven consecutive sessions of withdrawals since October 30, for a total of $1.66 billion. Over the last five sessions, it represents about one billion dollars of outflows, almost the entire negative result of the category.

This concentration can be explained by the size and liquidity of the product. With more than 811,000 BTC held and $64.8 billion in cumulative inflows since its launch, IBIT is the simplest way for large investors to quickly modify their exposure.

The most used fund to enter the market logically becomes the one through which capital exits first during a risk reduction. Its withdrawals may therefore reflect portfolio arbitrage, liquidity needs, or macroeconomic hedges, without meaning that investors are permanently rejecting bitcoin.

Moreover, IBIT remains positive by about $2.7 billion in 2026 despite its poor streak. The negative balance of the entire market also stems from annual losses of FBTC, ARKB, and GBTC.

The movement looks more like a tactical disengagement

Several elements still prevent us from talking about a structural abandonment. ETFs hold about 1.31 million BTC and retain $55.5 billion in cumulative net inflows since January 2024. November withdrawals reduce this base without erasing it.

Morgan Stanley also offers a counter-example. Its ETF received $22.1 million on November 9, then $20 million the next day. It even dominates last month’s flows with $62.8 million in net inflows. Some investors therefore continue to increase their exposure but choose another product.

This divergence may correspond to redistribution between issuers. Differences in fees, liquidity, counterparties, or brokerage platform access can prompt an investor to sell one ETF to buy another. Daily data does not allow identifying these transfers individually.

The real warning signal would appear if outflows spread simultaneously to the majority of funds, without any compensation, and if they continued despite bitcoin price stabilization. For now, the pressure remains significant but highly concentrated.

The next sessions must therefore be read fund by fund. A return of inflows at IBIT would indicate that large portfolios are taking on risk again. Conversely, contagion to still stable products would show that the movement is no longer a simple arbitrage through the most liquid channels but a deeper withdrawal by institutional investors.