They said this would have been reflected in the price SONG paid ($40-$50m according to the Wall Street Journal) and the contract it signed with the singer and songwriter. On the issue raised by Stifel that Hipgnosis’ 50% stake in Young’s royalties had not given the fund any control, the analysts said this was clearly deliberate as Young was ‘uncompromising’ about how his music is used. His higher profile could offset any loss from Spotify, the analysts suggested. Halving this implied an annual hit of just $377,000 or just 0.26% of their revenue estimate for SONG.Įven this could be an overestimate, said the analysts, as Billboard had reported an increase in consumption of Young’s music from the publicity generated by his opposing Spotify’s hosting an anti-vaccine podcast of Joe Rogan. ‘Our initial back-of-the-envelope estimates of 0.6% to 0.9% of annual income is supported by Billboard estimates of Young’s total annual revenue from Spotify of $754,000,’ they said. JPMorgan Cazenove’s Christopher Brown and Adam Kelly rejected this yesterday saying the impact would be a fraction of Stifel’s estimate, based on their analysis of figures from music industry magazine Billboard.

This week analysts at Stifel estimated SONG could lose $7.5m (£5.5m), or 6% of its annual income, from its 50% stake in Young’s rights, now songs like Rockin’ in the Free World, Heart of Gold and Harvest Moon are no longer available on Spotify, the world’s biggest music streaming platform. Analysts at JPMorgan Cazenove, broker to Hipgnosis Songs ( SONG ), have rejected the notion the music royalties fund faces a big financial hit from Neil Young’s withdrawal from Spotify last week, saying its shares are a ‘buying opportunity’ as they trade 9% below asset value.

Hipgnosis neil young spotify