Music royalties vs. other assets: how they compare to stocks, real estate, collectibles and bonds

Music royalties are still an unfamiliar asset class for many investors. Most people understand traditional investments through concepts they already know: share prices, dividends, resale value, liquidity, and risk. These concepts can offer a useful starting point to explain how music royalties work.

At ANote Music, we specialise in music royalties, the income generated by the use of the songs included in a catalogue. You can read more about how this works in our "Royalties explained" article. This article puts those concepts to work, comparing music royalties with four asset classes investors may already know: stocks, real estate, collectibles, and bonds.

The purpose of this article is to use familiar financial concepts as a bridge to better understand how music royalties work. It is not intended to suggest that music royalties behave exactly like traditional or alternative investments. 

So before going further, it is important to remember that music royalties are not a regulated asset class and each asset discussed in this article has its own structure, risk profile, income mechanics, liquidity, and performance drivers.

Please also note that the comparisons are based on how investing in music royalties works on the ANote Music platform, and other platforms may have different characteristics.

Stocks vs music royalties: what do music royalties have in common with stocks?

Like stocks, music royalties can combine two things: a price that moves on a market and a recurring income. The difference is the driver. A stock's price tracks the company behind it, and dividends come from its profits; a catalogue's price and royalties track how and how much its songs are used. 

Stocks are one of the most familiar investment references. When people invest in stocks, they often think about two possible components of return:

• Price movement: a stock price may rise or fall depending on the company’s performance, market expectations, investor sentiment, and broader economic conditions.
• Income: in some cases, companies may distribute part of their end-of-year profits to shareholders as dividends.

This framework can help introduce investing in music royalties on ANote Music:

• Price movement: a music catalogue share price may also fluctuate on the secondary market as a result of market sentiment, recent distributions of royalties, and demand and supply dynamics.
• Income: royalties are distributed to investors based on the income generated by the catalogues in their portfolio.

The key difference lies in what drives the value and income of each asset.

• Stocks are tied to the performance of companies, including their business results, market expectations, competitors and corporate decisions. As a point of reference for this asset, an ETF tracking the STOXX Europe 600 has returned an average of 9.60% annually over the past decade.
• Music royalties, instead, are directly tied to the economic performance of the songs included in the music catalogue across channels such as streaming, broadcasting, TV, live performances, sync licensing, social media, and other forms of music consumption.

This also means that dividends and royalty distributions should not be treated as the same: 

• Dividends depend on company profits and corporate distribution policies, meaning a company may decide whether or not to distribute them. 
• Royalties depend on the song's economic performance and are distributed to investors according to that catalogue’s distribution schedule. The timing and amount depend on the catalogue’s royalty sources, reporting cycles, and the specific rights included in the catalogue.

Disclaimer: Music royalties are not stocks, nor should they be considered a regulated financial product. The table above is provided exclusively as a descriptive comparison of stocks and music royalties through a few shared financial concepts. 

Real estate vs music royalties: how do music royalties compare with real estate?

Like real estate, music royalties can combine a value that shifts over time with income that arrives along the way. What generates that income is different: property earns rent when it is leased, while a music catalogue earns royalties whenever its songs are used. 

Real estate is another familiar reference for many investors, especially when thinking about assets that can combine long-term value with recurring income.

The comparison is useful because the basic intuition is easy to understand: a property has a market value, that value can change over time, and the property can generate rental income when it is leased. In the euro area, according to Global Property Guide, residential property prices rose 4.7% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2026, according to Eurostat.

Music royalties can be introduced through a similar lens, but the underlying mechanics are very different.

Real estate is built around a physical property. Its value and income potential are usually influenced by factors such as location, rental demand, financing conditions, regulation, taxes, maintenance costs, and broader property market trends.

In music royalties, the source of value is intellectual property, an intangible asset: the music rights attached to songs and catalogues. Their value and income performance depend on how music is consumed, monetised, collected, reported, and distributed across channels such as streaming, broadcasting, TV, live performances, sync licensing, social media, and other royalty-generating sources.

This also changes the nature of the income. Rental income is generally only produced when the property is rented, and it is linked to tenants and lease agreements. Royalty distributions are linked to the royalties generated by the songs included in a catalogue and are paid according to that catalogue’s distribution schedule.

The two assets also differ in the effort required to generate that income. Rental income typically involves active management: finding and retaining tenants, maintenance, insurance, and administrative costs, or fees paid to delegate these tasks. Music royalties purchased through a marketplace are generally passive for the holder: collection and distribution are handled by the existing royalty chain (collection societies, publishers, distributors), and the income simply follows the catalogue's distribution schedule.

Further, rental income usually depends on one or a few tenants, so a single vacancy can interrupt it entirely. Royalties from an established catalogue derive from the aggregated consumption of a very large number of listeners across many platforms and territories, meaning the income stream is diversified across millions of individual events rather than concentrated in a single counterparty (although past consumption is not a guarantee of future royalties).

Liquidity is another important difference. Real estate transactions can involve long processes, intermediaries, negotiations, financing conditions, and operational costs. In some European markets, total transaction costs: transfer taxes, notary fees, registration, and agent commissions, can reach 10-20% of the property's value.  Music catalogues may be exchanged or traded on dedicated marketplaces like ANote Music, where liquidity varies depending on investor activity, demand, and supply. Catalogues can also change hands through specialised brokers and private deals.

Disclaimer: The table above is provided exclusively as a descriptive comparison of real estate and music royalties through a few shared financial concepts. 

Collectibles vs music royalties: how are music royalties different from collectibles? 

The main difference is income. Most collectibles pay nothing while they are held and depend on a resale at a higher price; music royalties can pay out along the way, alongside any resale value on a dedicated marketplace. 

Collectibles are often one of the first examples people mention when talking about alternative assets, a category Investopedia defines as assets that fall outside traditional assets like stocks or bonds. 

Watches, trading cards, wine, sneakers, memorabilia, and rare items can become valuable because they are scarce, culturally relevant, difficult to find, or increasingly demanded by collectors.

This comparison is useful because music royalties are also often discussed within the broader world of alternative assets. But not all alternative assets behave in the same way: the Knight Frank Luxury Investment Index showed watches up 5.1% in 2025 while fine wine fell 2.5% in the same year, even within the same broad "collectibles" label. 

Many collectibles do not produce income while they are held. Their return often depends on a future resale at a higher price. Their value can be influenced by scarcity, condition, provenance, trends, cultural relevance, and collector demand.

Music catalogues follow a different logic. Their value is not only linked to ownership or potential resale, but also to the royalties generated by the songs within the catalogue and distributed to investors according to the catalogue’s distribution schedule.

This is the key distinction: many collectibles are held with the expectation that their value may be realised at resale. Music royalties, instead, can combine potential resale value on dedicated marketplaces with royalty distributions linked to the ongoing economic use of songs and catalogues.

Disclaimer: The table above is provided exclusively as a descriptive comparison of collectibles and music royalties through a few shared financial concepts.

Bonds vs music royalties: do they generate income in the same way? 

Not in the same way. Both pay income over time, but from different places: a bond pays because the issuer is obliged to, on terms set in advance, while a music catalogue pays from how much its songs are used, which is not fixed. 

Bonds are a common reference point when investors think about income-generating assets. They are typically associated with interest payments, defined payment schedules, maturity, and the creditworthiness of the issuer.

This makes them useful for introducing one specific aspect of music royalties: the idea that an asset can generate income over time.

However, the mechanics are different.

With bonds, the issuer promises to make regular interest payments, known as coupon payments, over a set period, and to repay the original amount at maturity.  Bond payments are usually based on contractual terms and may include predefined interest payments, some pay a variable rate that moves with market interest rates. For context, the yield on 10-year euro area government bonds stood at 3.49% as of August 2026; for live figures, see the European Central Bank's euro area yield curves. This can make the income profile more predictable, although it remains subject to the risks and conditions of the specific instrument.

With music royalties, the income paid to holders of catalogue shares is not fixed, nor contractually defined in advance. Royalty distributions are based on the economic performance of the songs included in the catalogue and the frequency of payment depends on the royalties generated, reported, and distributed according to the catalogue’s distribution schedule.

So both are ways to generate income over time but the source of that income is different: bond income comes from an issuer's obligation to repay a debt, while royalty income comes from the ongoing commercial use of the songs in a music catalogue.

Disclaimer: The table above is provided exclusively as a descriptive comparison of bonds and music royalties through a few shared financial concepts. 

Conclusion: familiar concepts, different mechanics

Comparing music royalties with familiar asset classes can help investors understand them more easily, as long as the limits of each comparison are clear.

Stocks, real estate, collectibles, and bonds each highlight one useful concept: price movement, income generation, resale value, liquidity, or risk. But music royalties remain a distinct asset class, with their own mechanics and performance drivers.

Unlike stocks, bonds, and real estate, music royalties don't have a public benchmark to quote here. Each music catalogue’s value and income are linked to the economic use of songs, rights and the royalties generated by that usage, the reporting cycles of the relevant sources, and the activity of the marketplace where catalogue shares are traded, which is exactly why this comparison focuses on mechanics rather than side-by-side figures.

For investors, the key is not to fit music royalties into an existing category, but to understand how they work on their own terms.

You can review the distribution history of each individual catalogue directly on the ANote Music marketplace. To continue learning, you can explore:

• ANote Music's 2025 performance report
• How royalty distributions work on ANote Music
• Explore available music catalogues

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Performance and returns are not guaranteed and may fluctuate over time. 

‍