The below FAQ style format summarizes the deep-dive podcast discussion with Joshua Harris, President and Managing Partner of Peachtree Media Partners, regarding the evolving landscape of film finance.

---

1. Vitrina: To start, could you provide an “elevator pitch” for Peachtree Media Partners and clarify your specific role within the entertainment finance ecosystem?

Joshua Harris: Peachtree Media Partners is a film finance lender in film and entertainment. It is important to distinguish that we are not investing in film and TV; we lend. We take a collateral position against the film IP, pre-sales, distribution agreements, or tax incentives, and we loan against that piece of collateral. This enables filmmakers to maintain creative control and upside in the project while allowing us to put private capital to work at a much higher multiple.

“We take a collateral position against the film IP, any pre-sales, distribution agreements, or tax incentives that are offered for a film, and we loan against that piece of collateral.”

2. Vitrina: What led to the “entrepreneurial genesis” of Peachtree, and how did your background in traditional entertainment banking influence its creation?

Joshua Harris: I have been in financial services for about 26 years, with the majority focused on film and TV finance. I was previously an entertainment banker at City National Bank, but after their merger with Royal Bank of Canada, they became a more traditional commercial bank. This created an enormous gap in the marketplace. Peachtree Media Partners was born as a JV with the Peachtree Group to meet this supply and demand issue using private capital, specifically taking the least risky position in the capital stack—lending—rather than equity investing.

“We have a marketplace that’s never been as demanding for content… and we have large commercial institutions that are staying exactly the same or retracting a bit in the space. And so that has created this enormous void of opportunity for private capital.”

3. Vitrina: How has Peachtree navigated the recent volatility in Hollywood, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the SAG-AFTRA strikes?

Joshua Harris: Volatility mostly impacts larger studio projects that are box office dependent. At Peachtree, we support independent film and remove the need for a film to overperform at the box office by hedging risk through foreign pre-sales and tax incentives. Interestingly, the strikes actually benefited the independent model; we were able to get A-list talent for non-studio films at favorable rates because they wanted to keep working while studio projects were struck.

“The independent film though, which is run by the producers and the filmmakers and not by a studio… that was the heyday… Because all the talent wanted to keep a paycheck coming in.”

4. Vitrina: You mentioned a unique “hybrid” lending model that helps filmmakers unlock more value. Can you explain how you use the “real estate” analogy for film production?

Joshua Harris: We allow filmmakers to “hold back” certain territories, like the valuable domestic market, rather than pre-selling everything. Like a real estate developer selling a condo tower, you pre-sell the lower-floor units to get the money to start building, but you save the penthouse for when the tower is finished and its value has reached its pinnacle. We advance capital against the “lower units”—tax incentives and foreign sales—to build the “tower” (the film), so the filmmaker can sell the “penthouse” (domestic rights) for a much higher price once the product is complete.

“A completed film is always worth… more than a project that’s just conceptual… We go out and we enable the filmmakers to take that risk on themselves and say, we think we’re gonna be able to sell this for X times two once we’ve made it.”

5. Vitrina: What are the specific budget ranges you support, and what is the “sweet spot” for a project to approach Peachtree?

Joshua Harris: Our sweet spot is the $5 million to $50 million budget range, which usually results in a transaction size between $3 million and $35 million. We require a completion guarantee from a AAA-rated bond company to ensure the film is finished on time and on budget. We typically source our pipeline through deep-rooted relationships with major agencies like WME, UTA, and CAA, rather than taking unsolicited projects from the outside.

“We will only lend when there is a completion guarantee on a project… That gives us great comfort that the biggest single risk in moviemaking, which is that we don’t finish the film, we are not taking that risk.”

6. Vitrina: How do you structure your risk mitigation, and what role do commercial banks play in your private fund?

Joshua Harris: We have a triple layer of protection. First, we have the completion bond. Second, we have a relationship with a large commercial bank that provides “back leverage”—they borrow about 80 cents for every 20 cents the fund puts in. This means a $100 million fund can support half a billion dollars worth of pictures. Because the bank underwrites every agreement we do, our investors benefit from a second set of expert eyes.

“If they [the commercial bank] don’t provide back leverage against it, we don’t either. So it really is a risk mitigation mechanism… we are getting sort of a triple layer of protection for the films that we are lending against.”

7. Vitrina: If the “loss given default” rate is so low, what is the primary risk your investors face?

Joshua Harris: The primary risk is a timing issue. The likelihood of being repaid is very high—the loss given default rate is less than half a percent—but the risk is how long it takes to get repaid. For instance, foreign partners often cannot release a film until the domestic release occurs. To mitigate this, we build in 15 to 18 months of interest reserves. As senior lenders, we also reserve the right to “fire sell” a project to a streamer if the timeline exceeds our cushion.

Our likelihood of getting repaid from this industry is very high… we often are only calculating a default on the basis of time.”

8. Vitrina: Looking toward 2026, what trends are you seeing in terms of genre and the “theatrical vs. streaming” debate?

Joshua Harris: We are genre-agnostic but lean into commercial products like action, horror, and thrillers. For 2026, the big news is the pendulum swinging back to theatrical releases. Distributors are now looking for films that can play in theaters before moving to at-home streaming to diversify revenue. We want more theatrical movies that pull families back into the cinema for a collective experience.

“The entire base is really seeing the swing back to theatrical being the future of our business… We want movies that can play theatrical… pull families back into the cinema.”

——————————————————————————————————————————–