Hipgnosis Songs Share Discussion Threads

[noiseboy] 07/11/2023 08:00

2 ex directors from Round Hill Music on board , good news IMHO

[grahamg8] 07/11/2023 07:31

New Directors on board. Time for MM to dust off his cv. New manager to be appointed next. Then some token sales to prove asset value. We can but hope.

[f880gna] 06/11/2023 20:00

A grift from beginning to predictable end. Who would have thought a business run by an artist manager wouldn't turn out to be quite what was purported?

[grahamg8] 06/11/2023 17:10

Sorry apollo it's far worse than that because of the debt. You have to knock the % off the gross value of the catalogues and then take off the undiscounted debt. SONG is very highly geared and so quite a small change in the catalogue value/revenue income will be catastrophic. The banks get their pound of flesh first, and failing that they end up owning the entire company. Shareholders walk away with nothing.

[apollocreed1] 06/11/2023 15:13

I think at a 50% discount to NAV there is still a lot of value here. The catalogues were valued by the same valuer that valued RHM and no suspicions were raised about those valuations. So even if it gets wound down at a 20% discount to NAV, that's still a 30% profit.
Then we have large Investors like AVI teaming up to revamp the board and so I do think that they will sort it out. Ruffer also has a large position.

[misterd1] 06/11/2023 13:20

interesting point epo as it can also be read the other way round

i.e. if a song does well then additional monies become due above that hurdle level

So even a simple fact like that is not crystal clear

No trust in this lot whatsoever

[epo001] 06/11/2023 10:38

The point of buying in here was a steady uncorrelated income. Now what?

"Performance hurdles in acquisition agreements." Meaning what? A minimum level of payment to the artist is expected? Catalogue ownership reverts to the artist if there is underperformance?

Have they bought these catalogues or are they merely leasing them?

Why would the share price go up from here?

[jamtin] 06/11/2023 10:35

I've sold out. GL to holders but I have just lost all confidence in management.

[williamcooper104] 06/11/2023 10:03

You forget Stage 5 Mr M goes and bids the assets out of Admin or credit bids the remaining assets prior to admin

[purplepelmets] 06/11/2023 09:48

938, that is exactly what it feels like, vindictiveness and spite what the f?

[feddie] 06/11/2023 09:39

Incredible. The bonuses are triggered when a catalogue outperforms, so this should have been good news. This management and board are absolutely incompetent and need to go now.

[laughton] 06/11/2023 09:13

You naughty shareholders. You voted against us so now we're going to cut off your dividends!

See how you like that!

[purplepelmets] 06/11/2023 08:48

This is getting ridiculous.

[misterd1] 06/11/2023 08:15

One disaster after another

[grahamg8] 06/11/2023 07:34

So there you have it. Stage 2 up and running. Provisions increased by $23m and gross assets reduced by 10% due to “refinements to the methodology”.

[grahamg8] 27/10/2023 16:58

Stage 2
Oops we seem to have used the wrong discount rate. Now we have increased it for x,y,z reasons you will be pleased to know that the current asset value is entirely reliable. Oh and by the way a lot lower than before.
Stage 3
I’m sorry you are so unhappy with the way things are. But Merck’s the man and will sort it by buying out the most juicy catalogues at their new lower price. You can keep the bits I don’t like.
Stage 4
SONG goes belly up with a mountain of debt and no income to service it. Oh I’m so sorry to hear that it’s all gone wrong; clearly you needed me after all. MM, bye.

I just hope the large shareholders keep a close eye the bxxxxxd. Anyone for section 30 of companies act 2006?

[sleepy] 27/10/2023 11:30

Was there a lawyer on the Board?

[epo001] 27/10/2023 10:59

#930, editing my message preceding yours, "and catalogues which may have usage restrictions imposed by the artists."

Could this be why there was no recent interest in bidding for the catalogues? After all the valuation of a partly owned asset is different from that of a fully owned asset.

[jeffian] 27/10/2023 10:39

#929,
The value of the income stream should be known if it was valued like any other company. All companies are valued on a multiple of earnings (even if those are anticipated future earnings). Why should music revenues require a different 'model'?

[spectoacc] 27/10/2023 10:38

Just an off-the-cuff thought - Mercky thinks he's vital to the business and can't be gotten rid of, because he "has the relationships with the artists".

I've only just figured out what that may mean. Recall the Neil Young (I think) affair, where he pulled his songs (from Spotify?) despite them no longer being owned by him.

Could it be that the music rights weren't necessarily over-paid for, and the income streams reasonable, but that Mercky only got to buy them at those prices by giving up certain rights to the seller/writer?

Only a thought. If a musician's song can be pulled from eg a Trump rally because that right resides with the musician and not SONG, what value to a new owner? And if Round Hill didn't do the same side deals, is that why their catalogue was the one bought out?

Am sure others will know more than me about how it works.

[epo001] 27/10/2023 10:33

Going forward, they have a catalogue whose value is unknown and an income stream whose value is also unknown. For the mid term the management and board have no motivation to act in our interests.

The options now are to sell the catalogues or to sweat the catalogues for revenue. I am 1/3 down here, more fool me. Is there any attraction here at all, what is the buy case?

[jeffian] 27/10/2023 10:17

#925,

IMO there's nothing wrong with the business model, just the people running this company. Today's announcement of the sale of Christine McVie's back catalogue shows there's still a market. They needed to focus on the income stream rather than the supposed NAV. Like many PI's (and maybe institutional investors), I bought this for a stable and growing revenue which would have supported a dividend, but they barely mentioned revenue in the early days, let alone their plans to grow it. I bailed out when I realised that not only did Merck and his crew have no idea how to run a company, but also hadn't grasped the key attraction of the asset; income.

[cynicalsteve] 27/10/2023 08:37

The Hipgnosis corporate logo is a belly up elephant. We can't say we weren't warned!

[misterd1] 27/10/2023 08:10

Thank you Graham

[spectoacc] 27/10/2023 07:04

A lot of Schadenfreude from those of us who never bought/bought into the SONG story, and couldn't believe the amount of extra money being raised, but Round Hill's takeover? There's clearly something in the business model.