AwesomeCapital

Thursday, August 20, 2026

A third of NYC’s 41 major theaters are empty — Can horror movies save struggling Broadway?

It’s spooooooky on Broadway.

And not only because of the cost of a glass of wine. Fifteen of 41 houses are dark right now, and those drafty old buildings are being haunted by the ghosts of Cee Cee Bloom, “Queen of Versailles” Jackie Siegel and Lea Michele.

But some actual, fictional spirits are inhabiting the August Wilson Theater on 52nd Street: those of the new play “Paranormal Activity,” based on the popular horror movie franchise.

Like most ghouls, I’m of two worlds — theater and film. And over the past several years, I’ve watched as the horror genre became the only product that consistently beckons paying audiences to the movies. “Sinners,” “Weapons,” “Backrooms” and “Obsession” are notable examples, yes, but also pulling their weight are established franchises such as “The Conjuring,” “Final Destination” and the “Halloween” reboot series. People demonstrably want to scream.

That’s what makes “Paranormal Activity,” which has already played London, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, DC and Boston, such an enticing prospect.

Broadway desires all the same things that the movie industry does — enthusiastic young ticketbuyers, a product that sells itself, repeat business — while charging ten times more for the privilege. Hollywood, for all its issues, is far, far better off today than stumbling Broadway is.

Could horror help?

Thrillers actually were once a popular fixture on Midtown stages. Think Frederick Knott’s “Wait Until Dark” (1966), his “Dial M for Murder” (1952) and Ira Levin’s “Deathtrap” (1978). But they tapered off in the 1980s. The 1988 flop musical “Carrie” carried its bucket of pig blood with misplaced gusto, however The Times’ Frank Rich wasn’t having it. “The intended Stephen King pyrotechnics wouldn’t frighten the mai-tai drinkers at a Polynesian restaurant,” he wrote.

Years later, a stage adaptation of “The Exorcist,” directed by John Doyle, played LA in 2012, but the demon Pazuzu never made it to New York.

More recently, in 2023, an original attempt at horror-theater called “Grey House” wasn’t ready for primetime.

The currently running “Stranger Things: First Shadow” has elements of fright, sure, but none are nearly as terrifying as how much money the show cost to produce.

Now comes “Paranormal Activity,” directed by Felix Barrett, the co-director of “Sleep No More.”

It’s a good ‘ol haunted house story. And if there’s one thing Broadway knows, it’s houses. Lest you cry “unoriginal!,” the play, which includes Blumhouse’s Jason Blum among its producers, has a new plot about a Chicago couple relocating to London rather than ripping off one of the eight films.

The first indie movie, which has a handheld, “Blair Witch Project” vibe, was made for a puny $15,000 and went on to gross $194 million, making it one of the most profitable films of all time. In that sense, it’s a forefather of “Obsession.”

“Paranormal” was cleverly marketed — previewing for several weekends at midnight screenings on college campuses in towns like Ann Arbor, Michigan., before Paramount even announced a release date. Its unusual trailer was two minutes of freaked-out audience reactions.

The Broadway show will hope for that same sort of organic-ish success fueled by word of mouth. The ideal word being “scary!”. The first four preview performances of the play were sold out, which is more than the last Tony Award winner for best musical, “Schmigadoon,” can boast of its past week.

Time will tell. First, this weekend comes the demons no priest yet has been able to fully exercise: the critics.

https://nypost.com/2026/08/20/entertainment/can-horror-movies-save-struggling-broadway/

Morgan Stanley picks Dallas for expansion out of NYC — stepping up Wall Street exodus from Mamdani

Morgan Stanley has picked Dallas for a major expansion of its banking empire outside New York City — accelerating Wall Street’s migration to Texas following the election of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, The Post has learned.

The financial giant plans to relocate up to 4,800 jobs to the state by 2031, passing over Alpharetta, Georgia, according to municipal filings reviewed by The Post. The firm will anchor a new $1.3 billion, 709,000-square-foot skyscraper in the fast-growing Texas metropolis known to financiers as “Y’all Street”.

The Wall Street behemoth led by CEO Ted Pick — which began exploring options outside the Big Apple earlier this year following the election of the Big Apple’s socialist mayor — had been weighing the new regional hub against Alpharetta, where it already has 3,000 employees.

But in June, the Dallas City Council approved incentives including an $18.5 million grant tied to specific hiring benchmarks and a 10-year, 90% property tax abatement — and Morgan Stanley has since plowed ahead with the project, public filings show.

The city’s 15-member Plan Commission quietly rubber-stamped final approval on Aug. 6 for the bank to mount 366.3-square-foot illuminated exterior signs on the Fountain Place tower downtown, following a preliminary sign committee vote in July, filings show. They clearly list the bank as a tenant.

Demolition crews also began clearing a former Gold’s Gym on McKinney Avenue last week to make way for the permanent skyscraper.

“This is the latest in what should be a wake-up call for City Hall,” said Steve Fulop, CEO of the pro-business Partnership for NYC.

“Apollo, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan have all highlighted Texas as a major hub in just the last few months, with thousands of jobs headed there,” Fulop added. “Texas is playing the long game and rolling out the red carpet for jobs, while New York keeps upgrading the tax calculator. The contrast is pretty clear.“

Morgan Stanley and City Hall did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson declined to comment.

Morgan Stanley will execute the move in two phases. The bank will first occupy 255,000 square feet at Fountain Place on 1445 Ross Ave. in downtown Dallas, where contractors will complete a $97 million interior renovation.

Workers will eventually move to the $1.3 billion skyscraper to be located at 2401 McKinney Ave.

The signage filings, submitted by Dallas land attorney Victoria Morris, propose installing illuminated, 366.3-square-foot attached signs featuring three-inch back-lit channel letters reading “Morgan Stanley.”

Construction in Dallas has begun even as state records lag. The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation shows no new filings for the Fountain Place work or the Uptown tower.

Morgan Stanley has also published a slew of new job openings in the city on the professional networking platform LinkedIn.

The project continues a major shift of Wall Street firms to Texas in search of lower costs and favorable tax rules.

Charlie Jewell, Alpharetta’s economic development director, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June 2026 that local leaders did not engage in a bidding war against Texas for the Morgan Stanley hub.

Just a mile away from the Morgan Stanley site in Dallas, Goldman Sachs is building an 800,000-square-foot urban campus that will host 5,000 staffers.

The migration mounts pressure on Mamdani, who has vowed to heavily tax the rich and rein in corporate real estate.

JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon warned in his annual shareholder letter that punitive taxes threaten New York City, noting bluntly that residents and businesses “vote with their feet.”

Citadel founder Ken Griffin has also openly battled the mayor. The dispute erupted in April when Mamdani filmed a viral video outside Griffin’s $239 million Manhattan penthouse to promote a new pied-à-terre tax, a stunt Griffin blasted as “creepy and weird.”

https://nypost.com/2026/08/20/business/morgan-stanley-picks-dallas-for-expansion-outside-nyc-wall-street-exodus-zohran-mamdani-election/

Meghan & Harry’s US political plans from request for Biden Oval Office meet to eyeing Senate seat

Delusional Prince Harry and Meghan Markle sought US political clout far beyond the dreams of any British royal since King George III, The Post has learned, with the Duchess of Sussex angling to take over the Senate seat held by Kamala Harris ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

Weeks before Democrat Joe Biden’s win over President Donald Trump, a source says, Markle requested a sitdown with California Gov. Gavin Newsom because she “wanted to be considered to be appointed” to the seat held by Harris, which she vacated just before becoming vice president on Jan. 20, 2021. The source added that the discussion was publicly described as a welcome-to-California chat to head off potential inquiries.

It is unclear just how far Markle’s appeal got with Newsom, who appointed California Secretary of State Alex Padilla to replace Harris two days before her swearing-in as Biden’s second-in-command. Padilla subsequently won election to a full six-year term in 2022.

A Sussex source firmly denied that Markle wanted to take over the Harris seat, while a rep for Newsom did not respond to a request for comment.

A memorandum from Newsom’s office that surfaced in February 2021 confirmed the governor had an “introductory meeting” with the royal couple on Oct. 19, 2020, though the specific topics discussed were not disclosed and the Democrat’s team characterized it as a social occasion. It was not immediately clear whether Markle asked to meet with Newsom separately post-election.

Had the Duchess of Sussex been appointed to the world’s greatest deliberative body, the move likely would have been challenged on constitutional grounds. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the founding document states that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust … shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

A British royal serving in the Senate, even a non-working one, would also have flown in the face of America’s republican tradition, as Alexander Hamilton — the founder of The Post — wrote in “The Federalist Papers” that “the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility … [is] the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.”

The ill-fated Senate maneuvering wasn’t the only time Harry and Meghan dipped their toes into US politics while trying to achieve the same prominence they enjoyed in the UK.

In late 2021, the couple requested an Oval Office meeting with Biden, as well as accommodations at nearby Blair House — a perk reserved for foreign leaders on state visits, multiple sources say.

White House staff quickly rejected the idea, with one source noting the spectacle of Harry and Meghan sitting down with the leader of the free world “would have caused a major diplomatic kerfuffle” with 10 Downing Street and the British Royal Family.

Another source, a former Biden aide, said the president and first lady Jill Biden — longstanding admirers of Queen Elizabeth II — “didn’t want to get into a family squabble” by hosting the rogue royals.

Had their pitch been successful, Harry and Meghan would have gained immeasurable prestige and stature at a time when they were struggling to find their identity following their January 2020 “Megxit” from royal duties.

To that end, the couple hired several consultants who had worked in the Barack Obama White House — including Harry’s current chief of staff Miranda Barbot — and acted as a bridge to the Biden administration, relaying the royal couple’s audacious request to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki, Obama’s former communications director, was one of those conduits. In her 2024 memoir “Say More,” Psaki — currently a host on left-wing cable channel MS NOW — recalled that Meghan once sent a box of lemons to Psaki’s Virginia home so she could carry them past White House security and deliver them to Jill Biden’s East Wing office.

The Sussex source declined Thursday that the couple had asked for either an Oval Office meeting or to stay at Blair House, but Harry and Meghan have a history of trying to use the American presidency for PR coups.

In September 2022, the royal pair inquired whether they could hitch a ride back to the United States aboard Air Force One after the late queen’s funeral.

The request was promptly denied.

Harry and Meghan also tried to use their influence by other means.

In September 2020, the couple gave a video interview to Time magazine in which they urged Americans to vote and “reject hate speech,” which many interpreted as support for Biden. At the time, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were called out by some commentators for breaking from the British tradition that royals do not participate in party politics.

“I wish a lot of luck to Harry, because he’s going to need it,” Trump responded dismissively to the couple’s appeal.

Meghan, who retained her American citizenship even after marrying Harry in 2018, tried to make her voice heard in legislative matters as well. In November 2021, she reached out to several senators to lobby for federally mandated paid family leave.

Ultimately the couple’s attempt to become kingmakers fizzled out, similar to their ambitions in Hollywood and the lifestyle space.

Harry and Meghan even wore out their welcome with the Biden administration, sources say, despite the first couple’s personal sympathy for the prince following the loss of his mother, Princess Diana, in a 1997 car crash. Joe Biden’s first wife Neilia and infant daughter Naomi were killed in a 1972 vehicle wreck that also injured the couple’s two sons, Beau and Hunter.

Jill Biden, meanwhile, had been a regular at The Invictus Games, the sporting event for wounded warriors founded by Harry in 2014 — often appearing at the prince’s side. Jill ultimately stopped attending the games after she became first lady in January 2021, due once again to the optics surrounding Harry’s departure from the UK.

https://nypost.com/2026/08/20/us-news/true-scale-of-meghan-and-harrys-us-political-plans-revealed-from-request-for-biden-oval-office-meeting-to-eyeing-senate-seat/

Abbott to resolve part of litigation in its specialty formulas for preterm infants

Agreements will resolve the Gillcase and claims involving approximately 2,000 other individuals
Abbott and the medical community stand by the safety of preterm infant formulas
Regulators and medical professionals recognize that these products are safe and necessary, and there is no reliable scientific evidence that they cause necrotizing enterocolitis

Abbott (NYSE: ABT) has reached agreements with three law firms to resolve the Gill case and claims involving approximately 2,000 other individuals relating to the company's specialty formulas for preterm infants.

In July 2024, a St. Louis jury awarded the plaintiff in the Gill case $495 million in damages. Abbott appealed the verdict to the Missouri Court of Appeals in December 2024, but the appeal was denied. Rather than continuing to appeal or paying approximately $600 million, representing the Gilljudgment plus accrued interest to date, Abbott entered into agreements to resolve the Gill case as well as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) claims asserted on behalf of approximately 2,000 additional infants for an aggregate amount of approximately $670 million.

These agreements are a compromise of disputed claims and not in any way an admission of liability. Abbott stands by the safety of these products and the essential role they play in helping the medical community care for preterm infants. The Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Academy of Pediatrics, NEC Society, neonatologists and other medical professionals recognize that these products are safe and necessary, and that there is no reliable scientific evidence that they cause NEC.

The agreements follow a series of favorable rulings for preterm formula manufacturers in federal and state courts, including victories in all three federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) bellwether cases. In July 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a pretrial judgment for Abbott in the first federal MDL bellwether case involving the company's preterm infant formulas. In June 2026, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed a $60 million verdict against Mead Johnson, finding that the trial court failed to properly apply the learned intermediary doctrine governing a manufacturer's duty to warn, a defense relevant in a substantial number of cases. In March 2026, a Florida state court, applying the learned intermediary doctrine, also dismissed claims involving preterm infant formula.

While Abbott remains confident in the safety of these products and the science supporting them, the company believes these agreements are in its best long-term interest and represent a constructive step toward substantially resolving the overall litigation.

Following these agreements, there are roughly 1,700 lawsuits pending in federal and state courts involving claims on behalf of approximately 12,700 individual infants. That population includes claims on behalf of individuals who named both Abbott and Mead Johnson without identifying which manufacturer's formula was administered, individuals diagnosed with NEC before receiving any formula, individuals who were never diagnosed with NEC, and individuals who appear in multiple lawsuits in different jurisdictions. Abbott continues to work to identify and eliminate such claims and others like them.

https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2026-08-20-Abbott-reaches-agreements-to-resolve-a-portion-of-litigation-involving-its-specialty-formulas-for-preterm-infants

Public pensions bet underfunded retirements on private credit's riskiest corner

Equable Institute reported on July 23 that America's state and local pension systems have reached their best-funded status since 2009. Trustees will read that as vindication for a decade of reaching into private credit for extra yield.

I spent years underwriting exactly this kind of loan before Wall Street gave it a retail-friendly name, and vindication is not the word I would use.

Unfunded liabilities still total $1.13 trillion.

A system can improve every year for a decade and still owe more than a trillion dollars it does not have, and several of the pension systems chasing that improvement now sit with allocations to the same private credit funds that spent the first half of 2026 capping investor withdrawals, a built-in limit meant to stop a manager from dumping illiquid loans into a falling market, well below what was requested.

The reach happened fast. Pensions & Investments' annual survey found that defined-benefit funds among the 200 largest U.S. retirement plans held $198.4 billion in private credit as of Sept. 30, 2024, up 57.2% from $126.2 billion a year earlier and roughly 7.6 times what they held five years before.

That is not a gradual reallocation. It is a stampede into a still-maturing corner of credit markets, timed almost exactly with the retail boom in the same funds now facing redemption pressure.

California's teacher pension fund is the clearest case. CalSTRS, a $402 billion system, holds private credit funds managed by Blue Owl Capital and is, according to Reuters, citing LSEG data, the largest investor in Blue Owl Capital Corp, one of the manager's publicly traded business development companies. A CalSTRS spokesperson told Reuters the system remains committed to its long-term strategy, including investing in private credit.

Arizona's Public Safety Personnel Retirement System has built its allocation toward a 20% target, reporting 14.9% as of March 31. Kentucky's Employees' Retirement System carries the same 20% target, telling its investment committee this past November that private credit remains attractive relative to private equity.

None of these systems built these positions quietly. Trustees approved every target in a public meeting, and none of them fully disclose which specific funds sit underneath.

Public pension reporting shows commitments to managers and broad asset-class targets. It does not routinely show a fund-by-fund map of exposure to Blackstone's BCRED, Blue Owl's OCIC and OTIC, or Apollo's Debt Solutions BDC, the specific vehicles that spent the first half of 2026 capping withdrawals well below investor demand.

A beneficiary in Kentucky or Arizona cannot look up whether the system's private credit manager holds a stake in a fund gating retail investors on the other side of the same balance sheet.

The mechanism is not theoretical. Morgan Stanley's credit team has projected direct lending default rates could climb to 8%, concentrated in the roughly 26% of exposure sitting in software borrowers now pressured by artificial intelligence.

Howard Marks, whose credit judgment I have trusted for decades, warned in an April memo that some direct lending managers accepted too much capital too quickly and underwrote to standards that would not hold.

A retail investor who cannot redeem from a fund experiences an inconvenience. A pension system that cannot redeem or has to mark down a position it believed was performing widens the exact funding gap it took the position to close.

The shortfall does not vanish. It moves to whichever taxpayer or future contribution rate closes it instead. None of this means public pensions should abandon private credit.

Diversified, conservatively underwritten direct lending has earned its place in an institutional portfolio for decades, and systems disciplined about manager selection will likely be rewarded once this cycle clears. It means pension boards should require, as a matter of ordinary fiduciary duty, fund-level transparency into which private credit vehicles their managers hold, and stress testing against the redemption pressure that already hit five major funds this year.

A trustee who cannot answer whether the system's book overlaps with a gated fund is not exercising oversight. They are hoping on the public's dime. For public money already short by $1.13 trillion, hope is not a fiduciary standard, and it should not be the one we accept.

https://www.aol.com/articles/op-ed-public-pensions-bet-191800000.html

Search This Blog