Film Financing Has Been Opaque: CineNow’s Rohit Dalmia Wants to Change That

CineNow is an ecosystem where there is a marriage between capital and technology, with IP being the product or asset base. Film financing has traditionally been opaque.

You can’t just bring capital and expect people to change. You have to give them a platform that is structured and governed. If it is business-friendly, producers will get on board. We aren’t going to individual producers saying, “Give us a script, we will fund it.” We don’t have existing relationships, past baggage or obligations. We have created a structure with capital and a level of governance that this industry has not experienced before.

It is also a filter. The producers who are passionate about the industry, who want longer-term financing, almost a rolling credit line, and who are sitting on good scripts but are tired of paying interest or sharing the IP they have created—that is who we want to work with.

For them, it becomes scale capital. We are not here to provide seed capital in a typical VC scenario. We are here to provide scale capital. Think of it as Series A.

They can use us to create a solid bank of good IP over the next six years. Once they have achieved that, they can go for a PE deal, M&A or whatever comes next.

How does an organisation become big? It has pedigree. It has already raised funds and produced movies. Now it can piggyback on us and scale to a certain level. That attracts larger players, such as American studios, for example. That is when they can have a PE deal.

So, we are an ecosystem or platform that gives them that opportunity. But it is designed for committed producers, good scripts and people who want to be disciplined.

The deal terms are very simple and publicly available. The first thing is that we can fund up to 100% from script to release. Technically, the producer has no equity in the financing.

CineNow can participate in projects at different stages, depending on the financing requirement, from development and production to later stages of the project lifecycle. The objective is to provide creators and producers with flexible, structured capital while allowing them to retain the underlying IP. A lot of filmmakers need last-mile funding—they have funded 70% and are short of the remaining 30%. Or they may simply need money for marketing expenses.

We participate at every stage of the filmmaking process. First, the IP always belongs to the producer, but it is exclusively mortgaged to us. So, I now have collateral.

When the film is released and monetised, we work on a 60:40 ratio. Sixty per cent of the profit is ours and 40% belongs to the producer. A 50:50 arrangement would not be fair. So, it is 60:40.

If the film generates a profit, I recover my principal along with my profit share, and the IP and rights can then be returned to the producer as agreed.

If a film generates ₹70 crore against a ₹100 crore investment, that revenue comes through the agreed investment structure, while CineNow also retains the underlying IP. This gives the investment multiple avenues for value creation, both through the film’s revenues and the long-term potential of the IP.

If a producer wants to retain the IP, there can be a structured mechanism and settle the investment accordingly.

He can work with me constantly. Even the ₹70 crore that came back has to be redeployed because I have a six-year life cycle. It is not simply a profit-and-loss game; it is a trading game.

That ₹70 crore came in, and I need to deploy it into the next film, whether with the same producer or someone else. Our focus is that, because we have such an expanded and professional team, we are finally putting money where our mouth is.

What differentiates our approach is that we bring institutional financial discipline to film financing. I am willing to participate in the process, while our governance framework gives investors greater visibility, transparency and accountability across the life of a project. Producers are expected to operate within these clearly defined principles, creating stronger alignment between the project, the producer and investor interests.

The role of the producer is evolving, with producers increasingly bringing together creative vision, execution and commercial strategy. But we don’t take those credits. Our credit is “finance partner”. We are not a producer and we are not a studio. A lot of people call us a “quasi studio”. I can understand why, because from the outside, the structure can look similar.

As with any investment portfolio, individual projects can perform differently. Our approach is designed to manage that variability at the portfolio level rather than view every film in isolation.

We think about this as a portfolio, not as a collection of individual films. The objective is to diversify across projects, languages, stages of financing and content properties so that the overall portfolio can generate sustainable returns.

The model is designed around portfolio diversification and capital recycling. For example, a portion of the fund can be deployed into films and entertainment IP, while another portion can participate in shorter-duration bridge-financing opportunities that generate returns and allow capital to be redeployed through the life of the fund.

So, the ₹1,350 crore fund is not simply about putting capital into 30 films and waiting for individual projects to succeed. It is about creating a diversified portfolio where capital can be deployed, recycled and compounded across different opportunities. If a film delivers exceptional success, that further strengthens the portfolio and creates the opportunity to expand the number of projects we can participate in.

That is the power of approaching entertainment through the lens of finance. You are not dependent on a single film or a single outcome. You are creating multiple avenues for capital deployment, returns and long-term value creation.

Unlike many startup investments, film and entertainment IP can generate value through multiple channels, including theatrical, streaming and other rights. Our approach is to diversify across projects and financing stages, while recycling capital through shorter-duration opportunities such as bridge financing.

We will manage through diversification, governance and disciplined capital allocation. The objective is to ensure that the portfolio is not dependent on the outcome of any single film.

Only films. Only commercial films, and theatre first. We are diversifying by genre and language. Studios do that as well, so that is not unique. Then we are diversifying through a slate approach. We are not here to do one thing. We want producers to use our capital to create a good IP portfolio that we are willing to finance.

That also means we are not dependent on one producer; we are working with multiple producers.

At the performance level, we are not only dependent on the performance of a film because we also have a parallel financing activity, which is much more secure. I am happy to cover the losses. And if everything goes wrong, at least I am sitting on some residual value—the IP.

We are looking at a portfolio approach that creates a consistent pipeline of content and allows us to participate in opportunities across the entertainment ecosystem.

He played a significant role in helping us assemble the team, and I would certainly give him credit for that.

Our approach is objective and merit-based. We have built the organisation to bring together diverse expertise, with decisions guided by the quality of the opportunity and its potential to create value for investors.

We now have a 30-member team that brings deep market access across the entertainment ecosystem. Our Investment Committee comprises seven members, bringing together creative, production, distribution and investment expertise. Each member evaluates opportunities from their area of expertise, while my focus is on the potential to generate sustainable returns for our investors.

This combination of industry knowledge and financial discipline allows us to evaluate projects from multiple perspectives before making an investment decision.

We are bringing completion bonds for all the films we finance. It’s a very common principle in the West; it happens everywhere, but not in India. Part of the completion bond is also to monitor the quality of the output and make sure the film is completed as per the script that was locked in.

We do not interfere with the creative process. Our role is to put the right governance and oversight mechanisms in place so that the investment is managed responsibly. We also work with appropriate insurance and risk-management structures to provide additional protection around the investment.