At the end of this month shareholders in Hipgnosis Songs fund will vote on whether it’s worth bothering to continue to exist as a listed vehicle, as the fund languishes at a discount of around 50 per cent to its net asset value. 

And that discount won’t have been helped by Hipgnosis announcing yesterday the scrapping of its interim dividend on October 16 as the royalty income it will receive from the US will be lower than expected. 

The other trust in the sector, Round Hill, recently sold some of its catalogue at a price which implied the discount wasn’t far wrong. 

Music royalties have been a much-debated asset class in recent years but some DFMs backed both of these funds - and some still do.

As we covered previously, a total of six of our allocators have skin in the game here, a number unchanged by the recent travails of the sector.  

It is unlikely any would want to sell now, with the continuation funds coming up, as the outcomes of those votes will materially impact the share price.

Darius McDermott, investment adviser to the Chelsea Managed funds, says his firm still owns both funds and he remains a fan of the asset class.

“Both Round Hill and Hipgnosis have been trading on wide discounts, but this is an investment trust-wide issue, not specifically music royalties,” he says. “We still like the diversified income stream this asset offers." 

He added that Chelsea plans to vote in both the Hipgnosis catalogue sale and the continuation but is yet undecided on which stance to take. 

But he doesn't believe a vote against the existence of Hipgnosis would necessarily mean the trust immediately needs to be wound up.

“There could be the appointment of a new manager instead,” he suggests.

It is worth pointing out that McDermott is far from alone among the DFMs we cover in owning these funds - there are three who do so.

So perhaps predictions of the death of music royalties (including by us) have been greatly exaggerated.

Joe Wilkins is a freelance journalist