Wrapbook’s Ryan Broussard joins Daily Ovation ahead of AFM 2026 to discuss independent film financing, Kentucky, Maine and California tax incentives, the proposed federal film credit, and why smaller film budgets are getting more attention.
Making a great movie is hard.
Getting someone to pay for it? That might be even harder.
For independent filmmakers, the rules are changing. Budgets are getting tighter. Investors want to understand where their money is going. And producers are searching for every possible advantage to get a film made.
But there may be some good news on the horizon.
A new federal production incentive could dramatically change the economics of making movies in America. Several states are already expanding their programs. And smaller independent films may be finding a new place in the market.
Ahead of the American Film Market 2026 (AFM), I sat down with Ryan Broussard, Vice President of Sales and Production Incentives at Wrapbook, to talk about where the business is heading.
Ryan has spent more than 16 years helping productions understand payroll, financing, and tax incentives. His experience ranges from major studio films to smaller independent productions.
He’s also worked with financial institutions and government film offices to help producers understand how incentives can support their financing plans.
And this week, he’ll be sharing that knowledge at two AFM panels.
Our conversation covered a lot. The changing economics of independent films. Why Kentucky and Maine deserve attention. The proposed federal production incentive. And why the biggest tax credit isn’t always the best deal.
For producers, entrepreneurs, and investors exploring entertainment as an alternative investment, there’s plenty worth understanding.
The $20 Million Independent Film Is Becoming a Rare Beast
The American Film Market has changed over the years.
Ryan remembers when filmmakers arrived with scripts, pitches, and hopes of finding someone to finance their projects.
Later, more producers arrived with finished films, looking for buyers and distribution.
Today, he sees another shift.
AI, vertical video, microdramas, and new forms of entertainment are competing for attention. At the same time, traditional independent filmmakers are reconsidering how much money they really need to tell a story.
“I think the $20 million independent is gone or it’s rare”.
ryan broussard
He sees growing interest in movies costing between $500,000 and $5 million.
These producers are working with leaner budgets. They’re searching for incentives, managing costs, and trying to put as much money on screen as possible.
The goal isn’t necessarily to create the next $100 million blockbuster.
It’s to build a movie that has a realistic chance of earning more than it costs.
Ryan offered a simple example. A film produced for $500,000 might not need enormous revenue to create a successful business outcome.
That doesn’t mean a $2 million box office result produces $2 million for investors. Theater splits, distribution fees, marketing costs, and other expenses all matter.
But his larger point is worth considering.
A smaller budget can lower the amount of revenue needed to reach profitability. It doesn’t automatically make the investment safer.
For investors accustomed to real estate, private equity, or other alternative investments, that’s an important distinction.
A film’s budget is only one part of the equation. The expected revenue, distribution agreements, financing costs, and investor recoupment structure matter just as much.
The New Math of Independent Film Financing
Ryan will bring that discussion to AFM on Wednesday, November 11, during Finance II: The New Math of Independent Film.
He’ll join Miranda Bailey of Cold Iron Pictures, Juliana Lubin of Ashland Hill Media Finance, and Paul Scanlan of Legion M.
The session examines how financiers are evaluating film budgets, distribution opportunities, and investment risk in a changing marketplace.
What does he hope filmmakers will learn.
His answer went directly to one of the biggest misunderstandings in independent filmmaking.
Many filmmakers believe that if they have a great script, they just need to find one wealthy investor who believes in it.
Ryan sees a much more complicated business.
“What we really want to put out there is it’s a whole pie,” he explained.
That pie might include private equity, production incentives, loans, and international sales.
Each source serves a different purpose.
Private equity supplies risk capital. A production incentive can help reduce eligible costs. A lender may advance money against certain contracted receivables. International presales can potentially support financing when enforceable distribution agreements are in place.
But producers can’t assume every piece of that financing will be available.
A forecast of future international sales isn’t the same as a signed distribution contract.
An incentive estimate isn’t the same as money already received.
And an interested investor isn’t the same as committed equity.
For filmmakers, that means the financing plan needs to be built with the same care as the screenplay.
“The best script out there will never get made because they don’t understand the finance side of it”
Ryan broussard
It’s a powerful point.
A strong screenplay helps create the opportunity. A workable financial structure helps make the movie possible.
For an investor, the question becomes less about whether the film sounds exciting and more about whether its financing assumptions can survive careful examination.
California, Kentucky, and Maine: Three Very Different Opportunities
On Thursday, November 12, Ryan will moderate U.S. Production Incentives: Where to Shoot in the U.S.
He’ll be joined by Steve Lyons, director of the Maine Film Office; Soozie Eastman, founder and president of the Louisville Film Office; and Yetee Osunsanmi, deputy director of the California Film Commission.
Why are these three locations selected.
After all, California, Kentucky, and Maine have very different production industries.
Broussard explained that the original thinking was geographic. California represented the West Coast, Maine the East Coast, and Kentucky the middle of the country.
But the selection also reflects three different stages in the evolution of film incentives.
And each has something to offer.
California: A Familiar Film Capital With New Financial Incentives
California has spent years responding to competition from states and countries offering filmmakers attractive production incentives.
Broussard believes the state’s progress deserves more recognition.
“I never thought I’d see a place where California is offering 35%,”
ryan Broussard
California’s Film and Television Tax Credit Program 4.0 increased the state’s annual allocation to $750 million, with the program scheduled to run through June 2030.
Eligible productions can qualify for a 35% base credit, with specific rules, spending limits, and additional incentives depending on the production category.
That’s significant for a state with an established workforce, studios, equipment suppliers, and decades of filmmaking experience.
But Broussard sees something else happening.
California’s incentives are becoming relevant to more independent productions, not only the largest studio projects.
That creates an interesting financial question.
If a producer can access a competitive incentive while filming near experienced crews and established infrastructure, does moving to a more affordable location still make economic sense?
The answer depends on the full budget.
Travel, lodging, crew availability, equipment, and production schedules can eat into the savings promised by a higher credit elsewhere.
A 35% incentive sounds attractive.
What matters is how much money the production actually saves after every cost is included.
Kentucky: Becoming a Serious Destination for Independent Films
Kentucky has become one of the more interesting states for independent production.
Ryan describes it as increasingly film-friendly, with officials working to expand production activity, strengthen the local workforce, and attract more projects.
Its refundable entertainment incentive offers credits of 30% to 35% on qualifying expenditures, depending on the relevant program requirements.
Kentucky also expanded eligible compensation to include certain fringe benefits and per diem expenses under its July 2026 rules.
That matters because payroll represents a substantial part of most film budgets.
When more legitimate production expenses qualify for an incentive, the financial benefit can become more meaningful.
Ryan believes Kentucky is especially attractive to independent films with budgets below $10 million, including productions around $5 million or less.
He also pointed to the state’s efforts to develop more crews and strengthen its infrastructure.
“They’re rolling out the red carpet,” he said.
For investors, Kentucky presents an opportunity worth evaluating, but not without conditions.
A refundable credit is not an advance payment.
Producers must still satisfy eligibility rules, complete the required documentation, and go through the state’s approval and audit process before receiving the final benefit.
And if the production needs the incentive money during filming, it may require separate financing.
That introduces lender fees, interest, timing risk, and potentially additional collateral requirements.
Kentucky may offer an attractive financial structure.
But the numbers still need to work before the cameras roll.
Maine: Why Smaller Films Should Pay Attention
Maine offers a very different opportunity.
Some state programs are designed around productions spending hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.
Maine’s established film incentive program has a much lower qualifying threshold of $75,000 in in-state spending.
Its longstanding incentives include wage reimbursement and a separate tax credit for certain non-wage expenses. Maine has also introduced a distinct 2026 pilot grant program with different eligibility requirements.
That distinction matters.
A filmmaker producing a $100,000 project might assume incentives aren’t worth exploring. Broussard believes that assumption could be costly.
If the film is already planning to shoot in Maine, a relatively modest qualifying spend may create an opportunity to recover eligible costs.
It may not transform the entire production budget. But smaller films can be especially sensitive to even modest savings.
Saving $10,000 or $20,000 could potentially make a difference in the amount of equity needed, the number of shooting days available, or the resources left for post-production.
Those figures are illustrative, not guaranteed Maine incentive payments.
The larger lesson is simple.
Don’t assume a production is too small to investigate incentives. And don’t assume the state advertising the largest percentage offers the best financial outcome.
The Federal Film Incentive Could Change Everything
This brings us to one of the biggest conversations heading into AFM 2026.
Could the United States finally adopt a major federal production incentive?
On September 24, 2026, lawmakers introduced the bipartisan Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act, through H.R. 10582 and S. 5552.
The proposal would establish a 20% base federal tax credit on eligible U.S. production labor, with certain bonuses that could increase the credit to as much as 30%.
It also includes provisions for transferring credits and potential benefits alongside state programs. As of this interview, the legislation has been introduced, not enacted.
Broussard sees enormous potential.
He believes the proposal could significantly improve the financial case for producing films in the United States.
In certain situations, he estimates that combined state and federal benefits could reach substantial percentages of qualifying labor expenses.
But there’s an important distinction here.
A federal credit of 20% and a state credit of 35% do not necessarily mean a filmmaker receives 55% of the total production budget.
The two programs may cover different costs, apply different restrictions, and use different calculations.
Even when benefits can be combined, producers need to examine the actual qualifying expenses.
For someone considering investing in a film, that difference could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Why Broussard Thinks the Federal Proposal May Be Too Generous
Ryan is optimistic that federal legislation could move forward. But he also sees a potential problem.
The proposed treatment of above-the-line compensation may be too generous to survive without changes.
Above-the-line costs typically include key creative personnel such as writers, directors, producers, and principal performers.
He is especially interested in the potential absence of individual compensation ceilings.
Imagine a major studio production paying an enormous salary to one actor.
If that full amount qualifies for a federal credit, the government could be supporting a considerable share of a single person’s compensation.
That raises questions about both political support and the program’s long-term sustainability.
“I think for the protection of the program, for the longevity of the success of the program, you’re going to need some caps and ceilings,”
Ryan broussard
explains
His concern isn’t that above-the-line spending should be excluded.
It’s that a successful incentive program needs to remain financially and politically sustainable.
Film incentives have changed repeatedly across the country. Some programs have expanded. Others have been reduced, redesigned, or allowed to expire.
Investors should remember that public incentives are shaped by legislation and government budgets.
They aren’t permanent promises.
Ryan hopes Congress can advance a federal incentive during the first quarter of 2027. That’s his prediction, not a legislative timetable. And even he expects the current proposal may need revisions before it can pass.
Why a 40% Film Incentive Isn’t Always Better Than 30%
One of the most useful parts of our conversation came when Ryan talked about how filmmakers compare incentives.
Many producers look at a state incentive map and immediately chase the highest number. A state offering 40% must be better than one offering 30%, right?
Not necessarily.
Each program has rules covering eligible expenses, minimum spending, payroll, residency, application timing, and credit limits.
Some credits are refundable. Others can be transferred or sold. Some are neither.
The financial value can be different from the advertised percentage.
Consider a simplified example.
Illustrative comparison: Two $3 million productions
| State A | State B | |
| Advertised credit | 40% | 30% |
| Qualifying spending | $1.5M | $2.5M |
| Gross incentive | $600K | $750K |
Hypothetical figures before fees, audit costs, timing differences, and any credit-sale discount. Not a comparison of actual state programs.
In that example, the production receiving a 30% incentive produces a larger gross benefit because more of its expenses qualify.
Now add the costs of moving a production, hiring local crews, securing facilities, and financing a delayed incentive payment.
The gap could widen further.
Ryan’s advice is to look beyond the headline rate.
That’s good advice for filmmakers.
It’s even more important for investors.
Wrapbook Wants Filmmakers to Understand the Numbers
Ryan joined Wrapbook about three and a half years ago after working with several established production payroll companies.
One of the things he values most about the company is its investment in free education.
Wrapbook offers an online Production Incentive Center, state comparison tools, legislative updates, and educational webinars.
Ryan and his team regularly update information as states revise their programs.
The goal is to help filmmakers understand complicated financial terms without needing to become tax attorneys.
What does a transferable credit mean?
How is a refundable credit different?
What documentation will an auditor require?
And how much of the advertised incentive can a production realistically expect to receive?
These are questions that directly affect production budgets and financing plans.
Wrapbook also provides payroll, production accounting, and related tools designed to help production teams manage spending and documentation.
That work may not be as exciting as casting a star or securing a distribution deal.
But it matters.
Accurate payroll records and expense tracking can help support incentive claims and reduce avoidable errors when a production is audited.
As Ryan explained, incentives have become crucial to both financing and cash flow.
And when the money is finally returned, even tax accounting becomes exciting.
What Film Investors Should Take Away From AFM 2026
There was one idea that kept coming up throughout the conversation with Ryan.
Independent films need more than a good script.
They need a realistic financial plan.
That means understanding where the capital comes from, what happens if expected revenue falls short, and when investors might receive their money back.
Tax incentives can play an important role.
But they don’t eliminate the commercial risks of producing and distributing a film.
A production can receive its expected incentive and still lose money.
A film can also finish on budget, secure a distribution agreement, and fail to generate enough revenue to repay its equity investors.
These are different risks, and they deserve separate attention.
For entrepreneurs and experienced investors exploring entertainment, the opportunity isn’t simply finding a movie with a talented director, recognizable cast, or appealing tax credit.
It’s learning to evaluate the entire business.
How much capital is at risk? Which revenue sources are contracted? Which are merely forecast? What obligations get paid before equity investors? And what happens if the movie underperforms?
Ryan’s message is especially relevant as independent filmmaking moves toward leaner budgets and more complex financing structures.
A film doesn’t need a $100 million budget to become a successful business.
But it does need to understand how the money works.
That may be one of the most important conversations happening at American Film Market this year. And it’s why Ryan Broussard’s perspective deserves attention.
For filmmakers preparing their next project, explore Wrapbook’s Production Incentive Center and the resources available at Wrapbook.com.
For investors, the lesson is just as useful.
Before investing in a film, understand the production budget, the capital structure, the incentive assumptions, and the path to getting your money back.
A great movie begins with a compelling story.
A responsible investment begins with numbers that can withstand scrutiny.
