Why African Banks Still Overlook Investing In Music Catalogs

Add us on Google

From my own point of view, the most striking thing about Ubi Franklin’s claims is how deeply they highlight a systemic mismatch: music catalogs are viewed abroad as long-term infrastructure, while here, they’re often treated as fleeting entertainment. And that gap isn’t just academic; it has real consequences for artists’ ability to build wealth.

When I hear about Blackstone paying $1.6 billion for catalogs, or groups like KKR, Apollo, Sony, and Bain Capital investing massive sums in publishing rights, I see people who understand that a song doesn’t die. Streaming, sync licenses, sampling, all of those keep generating income. Abroad, that’s predictable cash flow.

Yet, in Nigeria, the mindset remains outdated. “Banks here will reject your catalog but pay Davido millions for one December show,” music executive Ubi Franklin told  Eche Emole and Chika Uwazie on LinkedIn. “Same bank, won’t finance a catalog that gives $50,000/month in revenues, yet that same institution will cheerfully finance a big concert. The logic is inverted.

I’m sympathetic with what Ubi Franklin said: the risk models used in our banking systems are relics. They’re still calibrated for tangible assets, real estate, oil, and inventory, not intellectual property or recurring digital royalties. So, unless you can show them a property title or land deed, you’re not getting a loan. Even if you’re generating hundreds of thousands monthly from streaming.

It’s frustrating watching creators perform for weddings and events, hustling year after year, while their catalogs earn abroad, get bought and packaged into financial portfolios. Artists should be empowered to monetize and leverage their own back catalog, to use it as leverage for investment, growth, legacy-building, and not be forced to depend solely on gigs.

In this sense, what’s happening is partly cultural but mostly financial. Not about what songs we make but how we value them institutionally. When financial infrastructure doesn’t accommodate recurring digital streams, royalties, you lose out on generational wealth. You lose out on treating art like the asset class it is.

What I believe needs to happen:

• Our banks and financial regulators must update their assessment frameworks so that intellectual property is accepted as collateral, properly valuing what streaming income and sync rights bring.
• Artists and managers need to lean more into educating themselves on financial tools and models. If external investors understand catalog value, artists can push for similar recognition locally.
• Maybe even new financial intermediaries or fintechs could emerge, ones designed for creatives, with products built around royalty advances, catalog-backed lending, etc.

To me, the real revolution starts when one bank in Nigeria says: yes, I recognize your catalog; yes, I accept recurring streams as cash flow; yes, I’ll finance based on that. Once one does, others will follow. Then, for the first time, creators here can build generational wealth from their art, not just from their live performance circuit.