When Wall Street's largest banks filed their quarterly 13F forms with the SEC, a clear pattern emerged: major financial institutions appear to be building Ethereum exposure significantly faster than Bitcoin, based on their reported positions.
According to DWF Labs' analysis of Q2 2026 13F filings, banks grew their Ethereum exposure at a rate 3x faster than Bitcoin during the second quarter.
The Numbers That Tell the Story
The data from individual bank filings is striking:
| Bank | BTC Exposure Growth | ETH Exposure Growth |
|---|---|---|
| Morgan Stanley | 3.7% | 18.6% |
| JPMorgan | 12.2% | 67.3% |
On an individual ETF level, the moves are even more dramatic:
- Bank of America: Increased its ETHA position from approximately 67,500 shares to roughly 1.98 million shares—an increase of about 29 times.
- Morgan Stanley: Grew its ETHA holdings by about 202% to 4.6 million shares.
- JPMorgan: Increased its ETHA position by about 338% to nearly 1.17 million shares.
New Entrants Signal Growing Institutional Interest
Several banks made their first-ever crypto ETF disclosures in Q2:
- Spain's Banco Santander: Reported new positions of 129,615 IBIT shares ($4.31 million) and 297,947 ETHA shares ($3.54 million).
- Italy's Intesa Sanpaolo: Tripled its staked Ethereum ETF holdings to 349,600 shares while cutting its IBIT position by nearly 94%.
| Institution | Reported Position | Reported Change |
|---|---|---|
| Bank of America | ETHA: approximately 1.98 million shares | About 29x from approximately 67,500 shares |
| Morgan Stanley | ETHA: approximately 4.6 million shares | About 202% increase |
| JPMorgan | ETHA: nearly 1.17 million shares | About 338% increase |
| Banco Santander | 129,615 IBIT + 297,947 ETHA shares | First reported crypto ETF disclosure in Q2 |
| Intesa Sanpaolo | 349,600 staked Ethereum ETF shares | ETH exposure increased while IBIT fell nearly 94% |
What's Actually Behind the Shift?
Several factors appear to be driving the rotation:
- Staking yield: Some Ethereum investment products can provide exposure to staking-related yield, an additional feature that spot Bitcoin ETFs generally do not provide.
- Institutional decoupling: ETF fund flows and institutional behavior are diverging—institutions appear to be buying even as retail flows head the other direction.
- Q3 reversal: Data from SoSoValue shows Ethereum ETFs posted net inflows of approximately $365 million in July and $243 million so far in August, suggesting the trend may be continuing.
A Word of Caution
13F filings only show what was held on June 30 and don't distinguish between proprietary bank positions and holdings managed on behalf of clients. The data is also already about two months old.
That means the filings should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that a bank itself is making a directional proprietary bet on Ethereum. They provide a useful snapshot of reported holdings, but the underlying reason for each position can vary.
Even with that limitation, the Q2 data highlights a notable difference in the growth of reported Ethereum and Bitcoin exposure across the institutions covered by DWF Labs' analysis.
The Bottom Line
Q2 2026 13F filings point to a notable increase in reported Ethereum exposure among several major financial institutions. DWF Labs' analysis shows Ethereum exposure growing faster than Bitcoin across the banks it examined, with some individual ETF positions recording substantial increases.
The figures do not prove that every bank is making a proprietary decision to favor Ethereum over Bitcoin. However, they do show that Ethereum-related exposure is becoming a more visible part of institutional crypto portfolios.
With early Q3 ETF-flow data also showing renewed interest in Ethereum, the institutional side of the market will be worth watching closely through the second half of 2026.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are volatile, and past performance does not guarantee future results. Reported 13F holdings may include positions managed on behalf of clients and do not necessarily represent proprietary investment decisions.
0 Comments