At AFM 2026, leading lenders, sales executives, and entertainment attorneys explain where film financing is still available and what it takes to get investors to say yes.
Hollywood has money, but financing independent films is harder than ever. At AFM 2026, lenders and producers reveal what investors now demand.
There’s money in Hollywood.
Banks still lend. Private investors still write checks. International buyers still acquire movies. And governments around the world offer billions in production incentives.
So why does financing an independent film feel harder than ever?
At the 2026 American Film Market (AFM) in Los Angeles, a group of leading entertainment financiers offered a revealing answer.
The money hasn’t disappeared. The requirements to access it have changed.
Producers need stronger financing plans, more reliable partners, realistic sales estimates, and often a significant portion of their capital already committed.
The discussion took place during Finance I: Where the Money Is in the New Global Screen Economy, moderated by Adrian Ward, CEO of 1919 Film Finance, an entertainment lending specialist with more than 35 years of industry experience.
The conversation included George Hamilton, Chief Commercial Officer of Protagonist Pictures; Cory Lynch, Partner and Executive Vice President of Manifest Pictures; Ryan Webb, entertainment finance partner at Greenberg Glusker; and Sharad Bhatt, Senior Vice President at Bank of America.
Together, they offered a practical look at where independent film financing stands as Hollywood heads into 2027.
International Buyers Still Have Money. They’re Just More Selective.
For decades, international presales have helped independent producers finance movies before cameras begin rolling.
A sales company estimates what distributors in different countries might pay for a film, then attempts to secure contracts that can support production financing.
That model still works.
But not for every project.
George Hamilton of Protagonist Pictures explained that the range of films capable of generating dependable presales has narrowed.
The key question isn’t whether presales are dead.
It’s whether a particular movie has the elements international buyers want.
Cory Lynch of Manifest Pictures reinforced that point.
“The pre-sale market is just now more selective, not closed.”
Cory Lynch
Manifest Pictures
Buyers are attending markets. They’re making deals. But they’re acquiring fewer films and generally offering less money than producers might have expected in previous years.
And they’re increasingly looking for confidence that the films they’re considering will actually get made.
Hamilton outlined three factors producers should consider: genre, cast, and certainty.
Is the genre clearly defined? Does the cast make commercial sense for that genre and budget? And how confident can a buyer be that the production will move forward?
A concept-driven horror movie, for example, may not require the same level of recognizable talent as an expensive drama.
For filmmakers, that’s an important distinction.
A great script may attract attention. A commercially credible package is what helps turn attention into financing.
Banks Are Still Lending. But Against What?
Sharad Bhatt brought the perspective of Bank of America’s Entertainment Industries Group.
Traditional entertainment lenders prefer financing backed by identifiable collateral, such as contracted presales and qualifying production incentives.
But gap financing has become more difficult.
Gap financing generally relies on the estimated value of distribution rights that haven’t yet been sold.
When international sales were more predictable, lenders could assign value to those territories with greater confidence.
Today, those assumptions are harder to defend.
Bhatt explained that gap financing still exists, but lenders are applying more conservative standards, including greater cushions and tighter advance rates.
Ryan Webb described another shift.
Private lenders are playing a larger role in smaller and midsize independent productions, particularly when collateral doesn’t meet traditional bank requirements.
Some are willing to accept risks that regulated banks may not.
But that flexibility comes at a price.
Webb noted that certain financiers who previously provided gap loans now prefer equity positions.
The reasoning makes sense.
If their repayment depends on uncertain future sales, they may already be carrying risks that resemble equity. By investing directly, they can potentially participate in the film’s upside.
That doesn’t make equity safer.
It means the distinction between different sources of film capital is changing.
Tax Incentives May Be the Most Important Piece of the Financing Puzzle
Government production incentives were another major topic.
Across the globe, producers compare countries and states offering rebates, tax credits, grants, and other financial benefits.
For an independent film, these programs can make the difference between a financeable project and one that never gets made.
Bhatt explained why lenders find qualifying incentives attractive.
Unlike speculative future distribution sales, a well-structured government incentive can offer more predictable collateral, although qualification, timing, and collection risks remain.
That can reduce the amount of equity a producer needs to raise.
Webb also discussed the possibility of combining state incentives with a proposed federal film tax credit.
If enacted with favorable stacking provisions, such a program could make the United States significantly more competitive with international production centers.
But the panel emphasized that incentives are only part of the calculation.
A country advertising a large rebate might also have higher crew costs, more complicated labor requirements, or an unfavorable exchange rate.
Hamilton stressed the importance of considering the entire production structure rather than chasing the highest advertised percentage.
There’s another consideration.
A good local production partner can help a film qualify for incentives, secure financing, manage production, and navigate unfamiliar regulations.
An attractive tax credit is valuable.
An attractive tax credit paired with an experienced team is much better.
What Do Equity Investors Actually Want?
One of the most useful discussions involved the investors who provide the riskiest capital in a film’s financing structure.
Equity investors typically receive payment after senior lenders and other priority obligations are satisfied.
If the film underperforms, they may lose some or all of their investment.
Webb urged producers to evaluate their financial models under less optimistic conditions.
What happens if an international territory sells for less than expected?
How does that affect the investor’s recoupment?
And what happens if multiple sales fail to materialize?
These are not hypothetical questions. They’re the kinds of scenarios experienced investors now expect producers to understand.
The panel also discussed typical investment structures.
Webb described arrangements in which equity investors recoup their capital, receive a preferred premium commonly in the range of 20% to 25%, and then participate in a share of the film’s profits.
Those terms vary by project. And a preferred premium is not a guaranteed return.
It only has value if the film generates sufficient available revenue under its contractual recoupment waterfall.
Lynch offered another warning.
A financing plan with a large unfilled equity requirement can discourage potential partners before the discussion goes much further.
The solution might involve reducing the budget, strengthening the cast, selecting a more favorable production location, or finding strategic investors.
Those investors could include brands with a reason to support a film or distributors willing to invest in exchange for territorial rights.
The larger lesson is that investors aren’t simply buying into a movie.
They’re evaluating a financial structure, its risks, and the producer’s ability to execute it.
Could AI Help Make Independent Films Financially Viable?
Not every solution involves finding more money.
Sometimes the better approach is spending less.
Webb described a project exploring a partnership with Google involving AI-assisted production of multiple scenes.
According to Webb, the arrangement could reduce production costs by millions of dollars while also including sponsorship and financial support.
The specific production and projected savings were not independently identified during the discussion.
Still, the example raised an important possibility.
If new technologies can help filmmakers deliver higher production value at lower budgets, they may be able to make projects financially viable without requiring the same level of international sales.
Hamilton sees potential in those efficiencies, particularly for independent producers competing against productions with much larger resources.
But the panel also acknowledged concerns about creative jobs and the industry’s workforce.
AI may help lower certain production costs. It also introduces questions about labor, creative control, ownership, and contractual obligations.
The opportunity is real, but so is the need for caution.
Is 2027 Looking Better for Independent Film?
Despite the challenges, the panel ended on a surprisingly optimistic note.
Hamilton said he was more excited about the prospects for independent film heading into 2027 than he had been in several years.
His reasons included international co-productions, technological advances, and encouraging theatrical performances.
Other panelists pointed to production incentives, emerging talent, and possible new opportunities created by studio consolidation.
None argued that the business was returning to its old model.
Instead, they described an industry developing new ways to finance, produce, and distribute content.
That may be good news for independent producers willing to adapt.
The Bottom Line: Money Follows Credibility
The most interesting takeaway from AFM’s Finance I panel wasn’t about a new source of Hollywood capital.
It was about what makes a production worthy of that capital.
A recognizable actor alone may not be enough.
Neither is a promising script, an aggressive sales estimate, or a state tax incentive.
A financeable project needs those elements to work together.
Producers must show how the money comes in, how the production gets completed, where revenue is expected to come from, and how investors can recover their capital.
And increasingly, they need to show what happens when things don’t go according to plan.
Hollywood still has investors. It still has lenders. It still has buyers.
But they’re asking tougher questions.
For independent filmmakers, the opportunity isn’t simply to find more people willing to invest.
It’s to build projects that give those investors better reasons to say yes.
