Latest news with #JonathanCohen
Vox
a day ago
- Sport
- Vox
Why sports gambling is more dangerous than ever before
What makes everything different from before 2018 is the seamlessness. Photo illustration byAlmost every tech platform is designed to grab your attention and never let it go. You give it clicks, and it gives you dopamine. Games, news updates, social media hits — they all run on the same logic. We can add a new activity to the list: gambling. In just a few years, sports betting has gone from a legal gray area to a mainstream multibillion-dollar industry. And this isn't just about sports. It's about how our economy increasingly exploits our cognitive biases and our irrationality, and how institutions — governments, media companies, even the sports leagues — have partnered in this system, because they all want a cut of the action. Jonathan Cohen is the author of Losing Big: America's Reckless Bet on Sports Gambling. It's a new book about the financial infrastructures that we've built on top of psychological vulnerabilities. I invited him onto The Gray Area to talk about how this happened so fast, what online gambling shares with social media and crypto, and how destructive — on a human level — all of this has been. As always, there's much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Tell me about the 2018 Supreme Court case that opened the floodgates for sports gambling seemingly overnight. In 1992, the sports leagues went to Congress because of a threat, that was real at the time, of states legalizing sports gambling. And Congress passed a law called The Professional Amateur Sports Protection Act that banned states from legalizing sports betting. And then, in 2018, the Supreme Court rendered PASPA, as it was called, unconstitutional on the grounds of basically states' rights. And so, starting in 2018 with the Supreme Court decision, states are allowed to legalize sports gambling if they so choose. How many states have chosen to do it? And how quickly? Delaware did within six weeks. Today, as we're talking in July of 2025, we have 38 states and Washington, DC, with legal sports gambling; 30 with online legal sports gambling; probably soon to be 39 and 31 later this year with Missouri. FanDuel and DraftKings are the names almost everyone knows. How much of the pie do they control? A lot. Those are the major players, almost to the point of a duopoly, defining the industry. And they have, I would say, around 80 percent, maybe 85 percent of market share. And of course it depends on some states. There are lots of other companies out there fighting for third, fourth, fifth place. What happened to online gambling during the COVID era? It takes off politically in places like New York because of the fiscal crunch faced by states. And this isn't a new thing. It goes back to the lottery, and even during the Great Depression, when slot machines were legalized in four states because they needed the revenue. Lawmakers have this belief that there's always more money in the gambling cookie jar. Oh, we need money. Let's just legalize more forms of gambling, and that will make up for our revenue shortfalls. Politically, that's exactly what happens during COVID in places like New York and in other states. But to your point about COVID, we have a lot of people sitting on their couches and a lot of professional sports are starting to come back. And lo and behold, there's a new app on their phone where they can legally, seamlessly, frictionlessly gamble. So you can imagine the way the industry grows its market share and grows its foothold in that time. The gambling companies promise the states all this easy revenue, and they go all in. How does that bet work out for them? This is what's tough about gambling in general and sports betting in particular. In most cases, it actually has met expectations if you were the fiscally responsible person who is reading the budget projections. But the question is at what cost? Let's talk about the cost, especially the human cost. You open the book with this story about a young guy named Kyle whose life was completely ripped apart. Why did you start there? What does his story capture about these gambling apps and how they're designed? I thought Kyle was emblematic of what's happened here. He's a 26-year-old white guy who ran into trouble gambling on sports, but then even more specifically because he was someone who had gambled before sports betting went live but had never run into trouble until it appeared on his phone. But he was just really excited for sports. He was a sports fan, and he started betting pretty quickly. At some point, I don't know when his personal tipping point came, but it came, and gambling went from being something he did as part of his life to being basically his entire life. He wasn't going out; he wasn't hanging out with friends. He was just gambling. It was so instantly accessible to him. That was all he was doing. And he was drinking, he was smoking more because he was so stressed out from his gambling. He falls behind on his rent. His dad has to bail him out. Things go very badly very quickly. To paint a picture: Kyle was making $65,000 a year, and at one point, he wagered close to $93,000 on bets in a single month. Eventually, he gets fired. He goes on unemployment, and then blows all the unemployment money on betting. And then he moves back in with his parents. Yeah. I picked him because he is a young man, and this is the demographic it's happening to. It completely interrupted his life. There's a black hole in his life for two or three years, where he was consumed by gambling and the stress from gambling and the financial and mental health deterioration wrought by gambling. Why are young men in particular so vulnerable to this? First of all, young men are not exactly known for being judicious and careful, especially when it comes to money. They don't have great impulse control. You could already imagine how that would set them up poorly for something like this. They're also — and I'll speak for myself as a formerly young male sports fan — overconfident about their knowledge of sports. Sports gambling companies absolutely take advantage of this. There's a FanDuel ad saying something like 'never waste a hunch,' challenging you to prove that you 'know ball' by betting on your hunches. Young men want to prove to their friends [and] to talk show radio hosts that they know ball, and gambling is presented as a way for them to do so. And then [there is] 'financial nihilism' among young people and young men in particular. Many young men have disposable income, [but it's] maybe not so much that they're ever going to realistically buy a house or pay off their student loan or start a business. So they might as well gamble. Whether it's on sports betting, whether it's on crypto, whether it's on stock markets, whether it's on video game skins — it's not worth having $10,000 in their pocket. It's worth having a chance at $100,000 or a million dollars. And they're willing, as a result, to gamble and gamble more and gamble in riskier ways than they otherwise would. What percentage of the industry's revenue comes from the Kyles of the world? Not the pros or high rollers — regular working people who are addicted to gambling? Sixty percent of betters account for 1 percent of revenue from NFL bets. If you do the flip side, 82 percent of the money is coming from 3 percent of betters. Some of those people I'll flag are going to be really rich VIP betters like Phil Mickelson, who gambles a ton. But you can imagine there's a lot of Kyles caught up in that group or in the interstitial group between them. What makes online sports betting fundamentally different — and more seductive — than traditional gambling? What makes it different from everything that we had before 2018 is the seamlessness. It's the app design that's just as good and just as seamless and just as frictionless as social media or a shopping app. And there's an endless, endless, endless menu of betting options. You can bet on, sure, the LSU Tigers to win the game. You can also bet on whether the first half kickoff is going to be a touchback. And then you can bet on whether the next pitch in a baseball game is going to be 88 miles an hour or faster. You can bet on a tennis serve. And then at 3:00 in the morning when you're on this bender, you're in this rabbit hole and you lost all [your] money all day, you can bet on Malaysian women's doubles badminton. It's not a brick-and-mortar casino. They can't pump oxygen into the room. They can't pull the clocks off the wall like they can at the casino. But they can, with little behavioral nudges, design into the app some of those tricks of the trade. When these platforms detect — and they have plenty of data to do it — that someone is trying to wean themselves off betting, or when they spot problematic play, what do they do? Do they leave that person alone and let them wean themselves off? Or do they slam them with promotional credits and deals trying to hook them back in? The anecdotal evidence suggests that they do the latter. I've seen reports suggesting that they even figure out when your payday is, and they'll send you more promotional credits and offers on those days. The data that they have on gamblers would make Las Vegas of the 1950s weep. It's incredible how much data they must have on every single one of us. They claim that this allows them to protect people and to flag users who are betting problematically, who are logging in too many times. But I have seen no indications that that's how they're using the data. It seems like they're instead using it to pair someone who's betting a lot with a VIP host and offer behavioral nudges and emails, auspiciously timed to re-engage them and to keep them in the cycle. Do they kick people off when they're consistently winning? They're clearly capable of identifying problems and responding to them. Yes, absolutely. And some professional gamblers I talked to, they make a habit of every once in a while placing a really, really vanilla ice cream–looking bet. They'll bet on Aaron Judge to hit a home run or the LA Lakers to win the championship, because they want to look as stupid as possible, so that the sportsbook thinks that they're a normie and not a professional gambler. Because the second [companies] realize that they're a professional gambler or that they can win money, they'll just kick them off the platform. But as long as [the professional gamblers] can make [the companies] think they're an idiot and that they're going to lose or that they're addicted, the platforms want to keep them playing. The industry loves to use phrases like 'responsible gambling.' What is your issue with people being personally responsible, Jonathan? I don't have an issue with personal responsibility, and I do think people have agency and should have agency over their own life. Fine. That being said, it's not simply that it's Kyle against the sportsbook. It's Kyle against a multibillion-dollar corporation that is doing everything in its power to hook him and extract every last dollar of his discretionary income. They say, Oh, if you want to set a deposit limit, if you want to set a time limit, you can do that. But [those tools] are rooted in a user opting in to decide to set a time limit, deciding to set a deposit limit. Fundamentally, what it's doing is putting the onus of responsibility of 'responsible play' onto the gambler, onto the individual, rather than onto the company to responsibly provision the gambler with a non-addictive product or a product that is not maliciously designed to extract every last dollar that they have in their bank account. Are there signs that the companies are getting better at this? That policymakers are taking this more seriously in terms of identifying problem gamblers and offering resources to help them get over that problem? Not on their own. If there's a reason for hope, I would say it's coming from outside. There are advocacy groups that are filing class action lawsuits over some of these companies' most insidious behaviors, these crazy promotions that offer $25,000 in bonus cash, but you actually need to bet $100,000 to get the $25,000 bonus or whatever it may be. There's also a lawsuit ongoing in New Jersey over VIP hosts, the company's employees whose job it is to find big bettors and keep them betting.
Boston Globe
31-07-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Is sports betting America's next addiction crisis?
The following is a lightly edited transcript of the July 31 episode of the 'Say More' podcast. Shirley Leung: In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down a law that had effectively banned commercial sports betting in most states, ushering the country into a new era of gambling. Now it's hard not to watch Major League baseball or an NFL game without being bombarded with sports betting ads. Sports betting has fast become a multi-billion dollar industry. It's as ubiquitous as it is lucrative. In 2022, the Pew Research Center reported that a staggering In the new book 'Losing Big: America's Reckless Bet on Sports Gambling,' author Jonathan Cohen argues that the immediacy of online sports betting, and the convenience on our mobile phones is leading to an out-of-control industry that puts the health and well being of young men at stake. Jonathan thinks gambling has become a public health crisis — and policymakers need to set guard rails like they did with drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Jonathan Cohen joins us today here in the Globe studio. Leung: Jonathan, welcome to 'Say More.' I want to start in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision. How did the commercial sports betting industry get off the ground so quickly, and who are the players that made it possible? Jonathan Cohen: The way they got off the ground so quickly was they were ready to go. I've talked to sources at DraftKings and FanDuel at the time, as early as 2017, when the Supreme Court basically started the appeals process that would ultimately lead to the decision. They basically anticipated it and started building online sports books and retail products so that in the event of the Supreme Court decision, they could launch right away. And then on the state government side, Delaware and a couple other states basically had trigger laws, sort of like what we saw in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision on abortion, where immediately after the Professional Amateur Sports Protection Act fell, they were also sort of ready to go. So within six weeks of the court decision, retail betting went live in Delaware. New Jersey followed shortly thereafter, and then sort of it was a cascade from there. Leung: In your book, you also point out how sports betting wouldn't be as big today if pro sports leagues had stayed on the sidelines. Tell me how and why the leagues embrace sports betting. Cohen: They really like money. I can expound, but that's sort of fundamentally what it was. It's all about money. Three or four years before the Supreme Court decision, Adam Silver, the commissioner of the National Basketball Association (NBA) came out with an op-ed in The New York Times, calling for a new national approach to sports betting in part because he argued that making it illegal wasn't actually working. And then in parentheses, 'Oh, there's a lot of money to be made.' So once we had legal sports betting, it was sort of inevitable that the leagues were going to go all in, pun intended, because of the sponsorship opportunities and then because, if people are going to bet on their games, they want some modicum of oversight and some involvement for what they would call player protection and the protection of their games. But fundamentally it comes down to money, and the leagues were willing to normalize sports betting — that was the role that they played. They normalized sports betting by allowing commercials, for example, and that is how the industry, not just took off politically so quickly, but took off culturally, just as fast. Jonathan Cohen is the author of 'Losing Big: America's Reckless Bet on Sports Gambling.' Jonathan Cohen Leung: How much money are we talking about? How lucrative is it for them? Cohen: The one Washington Post estimate is that the sponsorship revenue from sports betting, for the NFL alone, is the equivalent of if there were two additional teams in the league. Leung: If you think about it, it's really incredible. Decades ago, Major League Baseball banned Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame eligibility because of his sports betting. Teams historically have opposed betting because they're worried that someone involved — like a player or a coach or a referee — will throw a game because they want to make some money. What's changed? Is it really just money? What's going on here? Cohen: So in some sense, nothing has changed. In some sense, everything has changed because what you just laid out was the exact argument the leagues made to get sports betting banned in the first place in 1992. It just so happened that the ban was unconstitutional, which is why the Supreme Court decision came down. But the argument was we need to tamp down sports betting as much as possible because it is through its popularity and through its access that if we don't attack it, it will threaten the integrity of our games, as you described. Lo and behold, they banned sports betting, but sports betting doesn't go away. And so the justification is, 'Okay, sports betting is clearly irrepressible, so we might as well open it up and keep it on the open regulated market.' The argument, at least at the time, was, 'Let's bring it to the open regulated market so we can monitor what is probably going to happen, whether we like it or not.' Leung: Walk me through the mechanics of sports betting. I download an app on my cell phone, and what's the user experience like? Cohen: The user experience is really good. The user experience is like a social media account, eBay, or one of these other billion dollar companies that has a really well designed, really seamless, really customer friendly app. You log in. And then, for most companies, you're going to give a Social Security number and a way of depositing money, whether some states it's through Venmo, credit, or debit cards. Once you have money in, you're probably going to get some bonus. Like, 'Oh, surely you deposited a hundred dollars, you get another $50 free,' or whatever. And now you're just going to be sort of like mimicking the endless scroll of social media. There's just going to be an endless, endless stream of betting options. This is not like what you would've imagined at a 1980s Las Vegas sports book, where there's like cigarette smoke wafting in the air and you can bet on like the Oklahoma State money line. You can bet on the Celtics money line, or you can bet on whether Derek White is going to get the first rebound in the game. And just endless, endless, endless options of things to bet on from the game itself to sort of micro moments within the game that might suit whatever your betting pleasure is. Leung: So when you're scrolling through, what am I seeing? What makes me hooked? Cohen: Lots of things get you hooked in that there are betting options for everybody. If you're a Celtics fan, and you just want to bet on the Celtics, great. Good for you. But for a lot of people, that's not enough. And especially someone who's addicted. They're not addicted to winning money or even to like the sports themselves. They're addicted to action. All they want is to basically turn sports betting into roulette wheel, or like a slot machine where you can just constantly, constantly, constantly bet on the speed of the next pitch, bet on who's going to hit the first shot, and so on. And then, lo and behold, 1 a.m. comes around and all the baseball games are done for the day. And in some states you can bet on Malaysian women's doubles badminton. Right? Because of course you were gonna bet on Malaysian women's doubles badminton anyway. And we need to offer a legal opportunity to bet on Malaysian women's doubles badminton. So that's the kinds of things that would get you hooked, not just the ability to like to go on the app. We didn't touch on this, but you can literally bet your mortgage payment in like five minutes. You can bet in 30 seconds, you could bet whether the next pitch will be over 88 miles an hour. You could bet like $15,000 on that if you wanted to. Leung: No, but how does that happen? Are they sending you text messages or how do they lure you in? Cohen: So the people are signing up because of these promotional offers that you probably followed to sign up in the first place. The real way people are getting hooked is they probably — this is true for most of the problem gamblers that I talk to — win their first bet. You win your first bet and you develop this sense of overconfidence that you're good at this and you're smart and you know how to do it. This is why they have these crazy, insane promotional offers like whether the Buffalo Bills will complete one pass. It's like, 'Yeah, of course the Buffalo Bills are gonna complete one pass.' They want to make it easy for you on your first bet so that you're like 'Oh, my God. Sports betting is so easy. I'm a genius.' And then even if you lose your next nine, you're gonna say, 'No, no, no. That was just an exception. I know that I'm good at this.' That's how you develop this sense of overconfidence. In my experience, from talking to specifically young men, that is really, really hard for them to shake. Leung: One of the things you point out in your book is that when they offer badminton or British darts, the only reason you offer that is because you are preying on people who are addicted. They're not super fans of British darts. So it's almost like these companies know to keep offering you something. Cohen: Yes. When I see minor league British darts or Malaysian women's doubles badminton. They are not trying to compete with the black market, which is often how they justify all sorts of things. They say, 'Oh, we need to offer legal online sports betting because all these people are already betting illegally on offshore casinos based in Antigua, and all we're doing is we'll create tax revenue out of it. We'll make legal money out of it.' There's no one who's betting on minor league British darts on these offshore websites. They are not actually providing a legal alternative to an illegal product. What they are doing is providing an outlet for someone's addiction who at three in the morning is chasing their losses and is just trying to bet. People describe to me that they would bet on a coin toss if they could. They're just basically picking minor league British darts players out of a hat and effectively betting on a coin toss. Leung: Who's betting on these apps from DraftKings and FanDuel? What's the profile of a typical player? Cohen: Lots of people bet. A huge percent, 20 to 40 percent of the American population by some estimates, has a sportsbook app on their phone. But disproportionately, if we're talking about not just who sports bettors are, but especially heavy and addicted bettors, it's young men. Actually within that subset, non-white young men have shown sort of disproportionately high rates of having multiple sportsbooks apps on their phone. But if we're going to sort of reduce it and sort of simplify it, we're talking about men between the ages of, let's say 18 through 35. Leung: And I think you point out in your book, when you watch all these commercials, sports betting companies have bought so many ads. They're in the Super Bowl. They're everywhere, especially during the ramp up period. You look at the pitchmen, the most memorable ones are black celebrities: Kevin Hart, Jamie Foxs and Shaquille O'Neal. Jonathan: And even someone like Kevin Hart, it's like, he's not an athlete. Why? The point is to get people, including black men, anybody who's not already a sports nut but who likes Kevin Hart. The hope is that maybe they'll be more interested in betting as a result. Leung: So how does this profile of a sports bet differ from the profile of someone who gambles in more traditional ways, like driving to the casino? Cohen: The demographics of online support bettors, specifically, definitely skew younger than someone who would go to a casino. As you can imagine, it's sort of an old person's game, and for a long time you had to pay cash. Leung: The little old lady on the slot machine, right? Cohen: A hundred percent, and that reputation, if people have been to Encore Casino recently, basically holds true. Demographically it's different, but experientially it's actually the same. The experience of betting on British darts or the speed of the next pitch, again, is basically turning sports betting into a slot machine where you're just pulling the lever every five seconds or every 10 seconds. With sports betting, you don't need to go anywhere. You're just sitting on your phone. You're on your couch watching TV, just scrolling and swiping and making just as many bets. Leung: Jonathan, we've talked a lot about addiction and how a lot of people are addicted to gambling because of sports betting. So what does it mean to be addicted to gambling? Cohen: Yeah, this is a really important distinction in that gambling is the only behavioral activity formally classified as an addiction by the American Psychiatric Association. If you think about something like sex addiction or kleptomania, those aren't actually technically addictions. They are sort of behavioral disorders. Gambling addiction is an addiction in the way that drugs, alcohol or tobacco can be literally addictive and sort of change the chemistry of your brain. There's nine types of human behaviors. If you display five of those behaviors over the course of the previous year, you technically qualify as having a gambling addiction. But I think it's a helpful question because even if someone is not addicted, even if they meet four of the nine or even one of the nine, that can be an indication that something is wrong or that can be an indicator of unsafe play. So it's helpful to remember that, yes there are people who are addicted to gambling, but there'll be lots of other people who can be negatively affected by gambling without formally developing what the American Psychiatric Association would dub a gambling addiction. Leung: How many people are addicted to gambling, and has that number grown because of sports betting? Cohen: So this is where the data gets really tricky and this is a really hard question. A curious fact about America, going back to the last 50 years of American history, is that we've rapidly expanded our menu of gambling options. We've added lotteries, we've added in-person casinos, we've added online casinos. In some states we've added tribal casinos, you name it. But as far as we can measure it, the rate of Americans with a gambling addiction has stayed consistent at roughly 1 percent of the American adult population. Now, we only have state level surveys for now. Indications are that that percent is rising or will rise again. The advent of online gambling is recent. It's just over the last seven years. Particularly what's rising, even if it's not this sort of formal category of addiction, is this 'hazardous or problematic category.' That used to be 2 to 3 percent. Now it's 3 to 5 percent. We're talking about like 5 percent of the American adult population. So, you do the math. The numbers aren't there yet to say like, 'Oh, we have an 'x' percent increase in formal gambling addiction.' But certainly, rates of gambling harm and people negatively affected by gambling are rising. And as we've talked about, the demographics of who's affected have changed as well. Leung: In your book, you profile several young men who have run into problems with gambling. Can you tell me the story of one of these men? Cohen: Yeah, so his name is Kyle. He's sort of the main character of the book. He was living in Colorado. He was maybe 23 at the time when sports betting was legalized there in May of 2020. He had bet a couple times in his life, had been to a casino but really never ran into trouble with addiction. Then, he saw online sports betting was coming in. He was so excited. He downloaded all sports apps on his phone just to get in on the game. Within like the first month or two, he ran out of money. He gambled his rent money, then lost. His dad needed to bail him out. He kept gambling a lot of money. He had to call the Colorado Problem Gambling hotline. At some point he lost his job because — as he described it — he was basically just gambling all the time. His mindset and his mentality and all of his attention was focused on gambling. He, of course, gambles his unemployment checks and all sort of remaining money that he does have in order to try to stay afloat. It's gone from being a hobby and a fun activity to what he sees as sort of a way to make money. He runs out of money again, has to move back with his parents in Wichita, Kansas, which is where I visited him. He still basically has what I would call sort of episodes of gambling addiction where he'll go six months without gambling and then the French Open comes around and he's awake for 40 consecutive hours, betting live lines on different sets. Then, the French Open is done and a couple months later, the U.S. Open comes around, boom, same thing. Last I've talked to him, he's sort of out of it, at least for now. He's stuck in this cycle of someone who was not gambling before and is now in a cycle of addiction, or at least a cycle of harm. Specifically because of the online availability. Leung: What did Kyle tell you about the experience of sports betting? Did he seek help at all? Cohen: Okay, so just your first question, this is important to say, he went into sports betting because it's fun. I can attest it objectively is fun. It's fun to bet on sports. The problem is when it becomes more than a hobby or more than just something you do while you're watching the game. He described it as like a second screen experience where he had one screen open for literally every other part of his ife and then one screen opened for just gambling, and that's why he ended up losing his job. He stopped dating because all he was doing was gambling. He ran into trouble a couple times and did seek help. He called the gambling hotline in the state and felt he had sort of a good experience, but not much more than that. That's why I think he is sort of still stuck in this sort of episodic period of where he's cut himself off from a couple of apps, but not from BetMGM. And, all it takes is one app on your phone to be able to bet as much money as you want on the French Open. Leung: At the end of 2023, I interviewed Jason Robbins, the CEO of DraftKings, which is here in Boston. When we talked, Jason argued that sports betting can make for more engaged fans. We're going to play a little clip. Jason Robbins (clip from 2023 interview): If you could take a person who maybe would watch their team play every week, and instead they watch six or seven different games in a particular sport. That is a multiplicative impact on just that one person. So, what I like to say is, I don't think betting creates sports fans, but I think it turns sports fans into avid sports fans. Leung: What do you think of that, Jonathan? Cohen: I think he is speaking to the Faustian bargain that the sports leagues are making with gambling, because he's right, it doesn't make sports fans. Because of the ubiquity of gambling in sports content these days, I fear we're actually not even doing the first step, which is making the sports fans and then turning them into sports bettors. We're just making sports bettors who don't actually care about sports, they just care about gambling on sports. And again, I sort of fear over the long term, once these people run into trouble gambling or they stop gambling or they see the leagues as corrupt because of gambling, they're just going to stop being sports fans. So I think he's right. Sports gambling is a multiplier for fandom, but I fear that it is only that way in the short term. Leung: So, reading your book, I couldn't tell if you were for or against gambling, so how would you describe yourself? Cohen: I don't gamble a lot, but I have gambled on sports and I, again, think it's really important to emphasize that gambling is fun and can be fun, and in fact can be harmless, right? Roughly 80 percent of sports bets account for a total of 1 percent of sports betting companies revenue because they're betting $5 on the Red Sox and that's it. I'm in that 80 percent. The sportsbooks don't care about me. I've bet like a total of $200 in my life, or put a total of $200 into these sports apps in my life. What I would love is if that's where it stopped, right? I would love if it wasn't possible for someone to bet $5 on the Red Sox and for that to be the start of a dangerous journey that might lead them to becoming like Kyle or one of the other bettors I profile in the book. Leung: So is it possible to make sports betting safe? Cohen: Okay, so I'm naive enough to think the answer is yes, and there are some specific guardrails that I advocate for, and they all sort of come down to this idea of friction. I would want something to slow the roll on sports betting and to make it so that you can't fall down this rabbit hole so quickly. The one that sort of sticks out to me would be a waiting period. After you deposit money, you put money into your account, you lose your bet, all of a sudden you're mad. You want to put more money into your account so you can chase your losses and you can keep betting. I think it should be where you put money into your account and then 12 to 24 hours later, now you can start betting with it. That would prevent this sort of cycle of loss chasing, which is one of the indicators of gambling addiction which can ultimately lead to problematic play. Leung: In your book, you point out how the sports betting companies have a lot of data on people they know who are the heavy bettors. They probably know who the problem gamblers are based on how much money they're spending. So why don't they just cut them off? Cohen: Have you heard of money? Yeah, that's the same thing that the leagues are interested in. It's not as simple as that. They, of course, are private companies. Their job is to make money for their stakeholders and so on. But part of the problem is they actually have no incentive to do so because of competition. If DraftKings were to cut off, for example, an obviously addicted bettor, the said addicted bettor could just download FanDuel or BetMGM. Leung: Unless there are laws passed, right? Cohen: Yes, right, unless there are laws or there is some sort of self-regulation trade group. And, the industry has talked about this. Based on the history of self-regulation, tobacco and alcohol, I'm not super optimistic that that's going to go anywhere. But yes, if there were laws that said someone is only allowed to make so many deposits in a day, for example, that might have a chance of cutting somebody off and stopping them again from entering this snowballing effect in the first place. Leung: And in your book, I was really fascinated by the concept of a self-exclusion list. People would put themselves on these lists where they would ban themselves for life from betting. Could that be an effective measure or tool? Cohen: It can be, as long as, again, we have inter-state and intercompany collaboration. There's a case from Massachusetts of a young bettor in their twenties. He would just start driving to Rhode Island or start driving to Connecticut. So he ended up driving down all the way to Maryland and every state along the way opted into the state self-exclusion list. This is why I think we need a national self-exclusion list. You can sort of like cut yourself off from every company, every state, sort of no questions asked. Self-exclusion is great as a tool, but again, it gets better when you have more collaboration, when you have more agencies or more organizations, more institutions involved. Leung: So here in Massachusetts, Northeastern professor Richard Daynard won a series of landmark lawsuits against big tobacco companies. He's now going after DraftKings, alleging that its products are addictive. Are there any more lawsuits that really stick out to you? Cohen: There are three big lawsuit sort of categories, at least. There's a lawsuit from Baltimore against DraftKings and FanDuel. They are like the lawsuits that were filed against big tobacco by states or you can imagine from local counties and cities during the opioid crisis. They alleged predatory practices towards its citizens from the city of Baltimore. There's also lawsuits in Pennsylvania and New Jersey against DraftKings, and some other companies, specifically VIP programs, which are company employees who get paired with basically 'heavy losers.' Their job is to entice these losing bettors to lose more and to keep gambling and to gamble on those apps, specifically. There are lawsuits from former gamblers who had VIP hosts and there's one from the wife of a gambler who lost basically their entire life savings, their kids' college funds and everything trying to sort of reclaim some of the money that the company, she would claim, 'maliciously' usurped from her addicted husband. So, those are two big categories. And then in Massachusetts, the lawsuit against DraftKings is specifically over the terms of a promotional offer where you sign up and get a thousand dollars in free bonus bets. The team at the Public Health Advocacy Institute alleged that that's basically just misleading and there's no actual, conceivable way that someone signing up for sports betting could understand the preposterous terms of that offer. Leung: It took lawsuits to reign in big tobacco. Do you think it will take lawsuits to reign in sports betting? Cohen: Hopefully not, because these things take forever, but maybe. Daynard told me that part of the point of these lawsuits isn't actually to win, not that he doesn't want to win, but part of the point is you go through the discovery process and also it leads to conversations like this one. Leung: Sports betting is huge. If you read your book, you're like, 'Wow, this is growing like gangbusters.' But do you think it's peaked when it comes to mobile betting or do you think something even bigger could come along? And what about just being able to play poker online or Blackjack? Is that going to be big too? Cohen: In many ways, DraftKings and FanDuel built themselves as daily fantasy sports companies suspecting that down the road they'd be able to offer sports betting. In many ways they're offering sports betting, not because they actually want to offer sports betting, but because they want to offer online casino games, which is called iGaming. Leung: Is it not legal now? Cohen: It's legal in seven states, including in Connecticut where I live. I'll tell you firsthand, it is addictive and it is insane. If you imagine someone playing Candy Crush on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (T) and losing an hour, just imagine doing that with a slot machine or roulette literally on your phone. It's a much higher margin product. It makes more money for the companies than sports betting does. If you imagine just how fast those games work and how you can play literally the seven hands of blackjack at the same time, again, on your phone with real money. This is the real North Star. This is where the companies really want to go. That's what they see as their real money maker, and it's a question of how quickly legislators will let them get there. Leung: Jonathan, this has been an eye-opening conversation. Jonathan Cohen is the author of the new book, Thanks for joining us on 'Say More.' Listen to more 'Say More' episodes at Kara Mihm of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Shirley Leung is a Business columnist. She can be reached at
Business Mayor
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Business Mayor
New York Designers Launch The Collective Shopping Experience
From left: Lena Baranovsky of Hunting Season, Marina Larroudé, Batsheva Hay, Abrima Erwiah, Maxwell … More Osborne of anOnlyChild, Jonathan Cohen, Sarah Leff, Edvin Thompson, Christopher John Rogers, Presley Oldham, Gigi Burris and Ryan Lobo of Emote Photo Courtesy of The Collective When it comes to luxury retail in today's climate, the name of the game is experience. Shoppers seek excitement and connection beyond the typical client and sales professional interaction. For young brands and designers, exposure via their own stores is often cost-prohibitive, and wholesale accounts are crucial, but not always the best acting partners. (To wit, when Saks Global began the acquisition process of Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman, it halted vendor payments, seemingly indefinitely. Its recent announcement to drop 600 vendors is likely due to attrition from vendors who stopped shipping.) Recent excessive tariffs, thanks to outdated manufacturing ideas, have spurred shrinking consumer confidence amid fears of a global recession. This leaves smaller, independent American brands and designers already dealing with a luxury downturn in a tight spot. With the spirit of 'if you want something done right, do it yourself,' 15 New York labels—Alejandra Alonso Rojas, anOnlyChild, Batsheva, Christopher John Rogers, Emote, Gigi Burris, Hunting Season, Larroudé, Presley Oldham, Ronny Kobo, Rosie Assoulin, Selima Optique, Studio 189, Theophilio, led by Jonathan Cohen—have come together for a three day pop up at the Freeman's | Hindman gallery on East 67thStreet to sell their Spring Summer 2025 offerings in a close-knit, often one-on-one shopping session with the designers themselves. Underlying the effort is a deep sense of community and a 'together we're better' attitude. Shoppers perusing Christopher John Rogers styles at The Collective Photo Courtesy of The Collective Spearheaded by designer Jonathan Cohen and his business partner Sarah Leff, the initiative was built to foster change to the wholesale and retail system, allowing them to directly engage with customers, share their stories, and build a more connected, resilient future for American fashion. 'We didn't want to wait for a solution—we wanted to create one,' said Jonathan Cohen and Sarah Leff. 'The Collective is about taking control of our work, strengthening community, and turning an industry challenge into an opportunity to grow together.' The giving spirit was also in full force for the concept space, which the Freeman's | Hindman gallery donated. 'At Freeman's | Hindman, promoting art, design, fashion, and culture is at the heart of what we do. As America's oldest auction house and one of the only major auction firms with a full-time specialist team devoted to couture and the fashion arts in the secondary market, the opportunity to partner with the innovative designers represented by The Collective was an unmissable opportunity and offers a unique chance to engage with our shared audience of clients and creative community on the Upper East Side,' said Tanner C. Branson, Associate Vice President, Head of Department Luxury Handbags & Couture Helping to produce the three-day event were The Hinton Group, Ruffino, and Christina Neault, a veteran show and event producer based in New York, who donated services. Marina Larroudé helps a shopper with a shoe style selection at The Collective Photo Courtesy of The Collective Spanning two floors and four studios, designers grouped in roughly sets of four to a room, arranged with styles and brands that both complemented and contrasted one another. The brands also represent RTW and accessories, making it possible to create head-to-toe summer looks. With Memorial Day just around the corner, presumably summer month outfitting is in high gear. While many styles were aimed at women's customers, men's apparel was also for sale. On the first floor, one room housed Christopher John Rogers' colorful stripe offerings, including a popular wrap halter style and swimwear, Batsheva's feminine polka dots, gender-inclusive EMOTE and Studio 189, the Ghana-textile-inspired, artisan-created collection by Rosario Dawson and Abrima Erwiah. Across the hall, Cohen's colorful floral and denim dressing offerings sidled up to Larroudé shoes and sandals. (Its founder, Marina Larroudé, has collaborated with Cohen and the two are close friends.) On opposite walls, Rose Assoulin's crisp and colorful stripe cotton options juxtaposed with Edvin Thompson's Theophilio collection, inspired by his Caribbean roots, infused with a downtown vibe. Upstairs on the landing, guests encountered some of the host's offerings in the fine jewelry. On display and coming to a live auction on June 18th were 1980s Angela Cumming for Steuban crystal and 18K gold drop earrings, an exceptional Bulgari Spiga wrap bracelet, a Cartier Trinity bangle, and a Temple St. Clair crystal and 18K gold amulet pendant necklace. Each item would pair with a myriad of clothing styles for sale. To the right was a room that featured Alejandro Alonso Rojas' Spanish-infused slinky silk charmeuses and chiffon dresses with Ronny Kobo's accessible-luxury cotton and knit sundresses. Selima Optique's sunglass counter between them made the room a one-stop garden party outfit destination. Gigi Burris helps customers with hat selections at The Collective. Photo Courtesy of The Collective The gallery on the other side also hit the 'fit search. To pair with Maxwell Osbornes' anOnlyChild's self-blouson Tees and pleated khaki miniskirts, one needs look across the room to Presley Oldham's fresh take on pearl jewelry, Hunting Season's chic raffia bags, and Gigi Burris' straw hats, a de rigueur crowd pleaser in hot weather. Burris, the sole designer with a flagship store in Chinatown, surmised that an UES customer would respond well to her summer millinery collection. On opening day, the mood was buoyant, with most designers attending to their customers at the event, which also featured direct payments to the sellers. 'The spirit of the first day was genuinely energizing—there was a real sense of community among both the designers and the guests. The space felt intimate but elevated, and the energy was warm, welcoming, and refreshingly personal. Customers responded not only to the curation and craftsmanship of the work, but to the fact that they were engaging directly with the people behind the brands. It felt like a true breath of fresh air compared to traditional retail environments,' said Cohen. Many thought the concept could also travel across the country, especially to secondary and tertiary markets in mid-sized cities. 'As for the idea of a traveling group trunk show—we love that thought. We've definitely imagined it as a next step, even if still loosely at this stage. The response so far has made it clear that there's a real appetite for something like this, and the portability of the concept feels exciting,' Cohen added. The experience is continues May 19th from 11 AM to 6 PM and May 20th from 11 AM to 4 PM.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Q4 2025 Oxford Lane Capital Corp Earnings Call
Jonathan Cohen; Chief Executive Officer, Director; Oxford Lane Capital Corp Bruce Rubin; Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, Treasurer, Corporate Secretary; Oxford Lane Capital Corp Joe Kupka; Managing DIrector; Oxford Lane Capital Corp Deja Sakon Justin Marca; Analyst; Lucid Capital Markets Operator Good morning, and thank you all for attending the Oxford Lane Capital Corp. announces net asset value and selected financial results for the fourth fiscal quarter. My name is Breca, and I will be your moderator for today. (Operator Instructions)I would now like to pass the conference over to your host, Jonathan Cohen, CEO at Oxford Lane Capital Corp. Thank you. You may proceed, Jonathan. Jonathan Cohen Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Oxford Lane Capital Corp. fourth fiscal quarter 2025 earnings conference call. I'm joined today by Saul Rosenthal, our President; Bruce Rubin, our CFO; and Joe Kupka, our Managing could you open the call with a disclosure regarding forward-looking statements? Bruce Rubin Sure, Jonathan. Today's conference call is being recorded. An audio replay of the call will be available for 30 days. Replay information is included in our press release that was issued earlier this morning. Please note that this call is the property of Oxford Lane Capital Corp. Any unauthorized rebroadcast of this call in any form is strictly this point, please direct your attention to the customary disclosure in this morning's press release regarding forward-looking information. Today's conference call includes forward-looking statements and projections that reflect the company's current views with respect to, among other things, future events and financial ask that you refer to our most recent filings with the SEC for important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated in these projections. We do not undertake to update our forward-looking statements unless required to do so by law. During this call, we will use terms defined by -- in the earnings release and also referred to non-GAAP measures. For definitions and reconciliations to GAAP, please refer to our earnings release provided on our website at that, I'll turn the presentation back over to Jonathan. Jonathan Cohen Thank you, Bruce. On March 31, 2025, our net asset value per share stood at $4.32 compared to a net asset value per share of $4.82 as of the previous quarter. For the quarter ended March, we recorded GAAP total investment income of approximately $121.2 million, representing an increase of approximately $6.7 million from the prior the quarter ending March, we recorded -- excuse me, the quarter's GAAP total investment income consisted of approximately $115.3 million from our CLO equity and CLO warehouse investments and approximately $5.9 million from our CLO debt investments and from other income. Oxford Lane recorded GAAP net investment income of approximately $75.4 million or $0.18 per share for the quarter ended March compared to approximately $72.4 million or $0.20 per share for the quarter ended December core net investment income was approximately $95.8 million or $0.23 per share for the quarter ended March compared with approximately $99.9 million or $0.28 per share for the quarter ended December 31. As of March 31, we held approximately $639.1 million in newly issued or newly acquired CLO equity investments that had not yet made initial equity distributions to Oxford Lane Capital the quarter ended March, we recorded net unrealized depreciation on investments of approximately $187.7 million and net realized losses of approximately $8.5 million. We had a net decrease in net assets resulting from operations of approximately $120.8 million or $0.28 per share for the fourth fiscal quarter. As of March 31, the following metrics applied. We note that none of these metrics necessarily represented a total return to weighted average yield of our CLO debt investments at current cost was 15.9%, down from 16.6% as of December 31. The weighted average effective yield of our CLO equity investments at current cost was 15.9%, down from 16.1% as of December 31. The weighted average cash distribution yield of our CLO equity investments at current cost was 20.5%, which was down from 23.9% as of December 31. We note that the cash distribution yields calculated on our CLO equity investments are based on the cash distributions we received or which we were entitled to receive at each respective period the quarter ended March, we issued a total of approximately 60.7 million shares of our common stock pursuant to an aftermarket offering resulting in net proceeds of approximately $300.5 million. During the quarter ended March, we made additional CLO investments of approximately $526.2 million and we received approximately $136 million from sales and from repayments. As previously announced, on March 26, our Board of Directors declared monthly common stock distributions of $0.09 per share for each of the months ending July, August, and September of as previously announced on May 16, we were awarded Best Public Closed-End CLO fund by the periodical Creditflux at their London Conference. With that, I'll turn the call over to our Managing Director, Joe Kupka. Joe Kupka Thanks, Jonathan. During the quarter ended March 31, 2025, US loan market performance weakened versus the prior quarter. US loan price index decreased from 97.33% as of December 31, 2024, to 96.31% as of March decrease in US loan prices led to an approximate 12-point decrease in median US CLO equity net asset values. Additionally, due to elevated levels of repricing activity, we observed median weighted average spreads across loan pools within CLO portfolios decreased to 330 basis points compared to 334 basis points last 12-month trailing default rate for the loan index declined to 0.8% by principal amount at the end of the quarter from 0.9% at the end of December 2024. We note that out-of-court restructurings, exchanges, and subpar buybacks, which are not captured in the cited default rate remain elevated. CLO new issuance for the quarter totaled approximately $49 billion, reflecting a nearly $11 billion decline from the previous quarter, though issuance volume kept pace with the first quarter of 2024, a record-breaking the US CLO market saw over $100 billion in reset and refinancing activity in Q1 '25 consistent with levels seen in the prior quarter. Oxford Lane remained active this quarter, investing over $520 million in CLO equity debt and warehouses, while participating in opportunistics, resets, and refinancings. As a function of our overall activity during the quarter, we were able to lengthen the weighted average reinvestment period of Oxford Lane CLO equity portfolio from February 2028 to November primary investment strategy during the quarter was to engage in relative value trading and seek to lengthen the weighted average reinvestment period of Oxford Lane CLO equity portfolio. In the current market environment, we intend to continue to utilize our opportunistic and unconstrained CLO investment strategy across US CLO equity debt and warehouses as we look to maximize our long-term total return, and as a permanent capital vehicle, we have historically been able to take a longer-term view towards our investment that, I'll turn the call back over to Jonathan. Jonathan Cohen Thanks very much, Joe. With that, operator, we're happy to open the call for any questions. Operator (Operator Instructions) We have a question from [Deija Sakon] with (inaudible) Private Investor. Deja Sakon Think about the share repurchase program, have you purchased any shares yet under that? Jonathan Cohen We haven't disclosed that information. Operator Erik Zwick, Lucid Capital Markets. Justin Marca This is Justin on for Erik today. So I was wondering if you guys could talk about pricing dynamics in the current quarter, understanding that yields were down in the quarter ended in March and maybe what you're expecting to see for this year. Jonathan Cohen Joe? Joe Kupka Yeah. Are you referring to CLO equity trading levels in particular or the liability market, anything in particular you're looking up to go over? Justin Marca I guess kind of just at a high level, where you guys are expecting yields to go for the investment portfolio. Jonathan Cohen Sure. We don't have a specific target, Justin, or projection in terms of anticipated yields. What we can say is that between the end of calendar 2024 and March 31, we saw a dramatic diminishment in CLO tranche pricing, significant illiquidity in the marketplace. And a general level of stress accompanying the levels of stress that we saw in public and private equity markets, the US syndicated corporate loan market, the public corporate bond market, all of those things were fairly tightly correlated during that period of economic we move forward to the end of April, we obviously saw that get worse. And then rebound very, very substantially between April 30 and May 16, last Friday. So as you know, we've obviously seen a fair amount of volatility across this and most other asset classes. But in terms of a specific point estimate of where we anticipate yields to reside for the remainder of this calendar year, we have none. Justin Marca Okay. All right. That's great. And then maybe if you guys could talk about the relative attractiveness in the primary versus secondary markets and kind of how the investment portfolio is positioned in terms of cyclicality in the companies that are invested in? Joe Kupka Yeah. So I think the answer to those questions kind of are linked. We're constantly reevaluating the relative attractiveness of the primary and the secondary. AAAs in particular, are still undergoing some price discovery. So that's a calculation we're reassessing every day. We're still seeing attractive opportunities in both the primary and depending on the particular offers or structures that we were able to create in the primary, we're active in both markets. In terms of the cyclicality part of the question, one thing we are focused on is just lengthening that reinvestment period as much as possible just to lessen that part of the risk spectrum. So that's one way we think of it, just lengthening the runway for our managers, allowing them to work out of any problems that arise. Jonathan Cohen Sure. And in addition to what Joe just referenced, Justin, there's also the economic issue associated with holding long-dated CLO equity during periods of economic and financial dislocation, which we think has historically provided us with strong economic returns. Justin Marca Great. Okay. Thank you. That helps. And then just last one for me on sort of your strategy. Curious how you guys differentiate yourselves from peers. Any sort of qualitative or quantitative examples on your strategy and how you guys relate to any other peers would be helpful. Jonathan Cohen Sure. Obviously, we don't track our peers with the precision that we track our own performance and we monitor our own portfolios. I think historically, Justin, we've differentiated ourselves in a couple of ways. Firstly, as you know, we run a completely unconstrained CLO investment strategy, meaning that we can look at long-dated CLO equity, short-dated CLO equity, primary tranches, secondary tranches, we warehouse, obviously, a fair amount. We are one of the largest market participants in both the primary and secondary markets and also, we rotate the portfolio again, I can't speak to the investment strategies of other firms, but we view this asset class as particularly appropriate for an active portfolio management strategy, which is very much what we engage in. Justin Marca Great. That's helpful. Thanks for taking my questions today. That's all for me. Operator (Operator Instructions) I can see that we have no further questions. So I would like to hand it back to Jonathan for some final closing comments. Jonathan Cohen Well, I'd like to thank everyone for their interest in Oxford Lane Capital and for their participation on this call or listening to the replay. And we look forward to speaking to you again soon. Thanks very much. Operator Thank you all for joining the Oxford Lane Capital Corp. call today. At this time, today's call has concluded. You may now disconnect, and thank you for your participation. Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
19-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Forbes
New York Designers Launch The Collective Shopping Experience
From left: Lena Baranovsky of Hunting Season, Marina Larroudé, Batsheva Hay, Abrima Erwiah, Maxwell ... More Osborne of anOnlyChild, Jonathan Cohen, Sarah Leff, Edvin Thompson, Christopher John Rogers, Presley Oldham, Gigi Burris and Ryan Lobo of Emote When it comes to luxury retail in today's climate, the name of the game is experience. Shoppers seek excitement and connection beyond the typical client and sales professional interaction. For young brands and designers, exposure via their own stores is often cost-prohibitive, and wholesale accounts are crucial, but not always the best acting partners. (To wit, when Saks Global began the acquisition process of Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman, it halted vendor payments, seemingly indefinitely. Its recent announcement to drop 600 vendors is likely due to attrition from vendors who stopped shipping.) Recent excessive tariffs, thanks to outdated manufacturing ideas, have spurred shrinking consumer confidence amid fears of a global recession. This leaves smaller, independent American brands and designers already dealing with a luxury downturn in a tight spot. With the spirit of 'if you want something done right, do it yourself," 15 New York labels—Alejandra Alonso Rojas, anOnlyChild, Batsheva, Christopher John Rogers, Emote, Gigi Burris, Hunting Season, Larroudé, Presley Oldham, Ronny Kobo, Rosie Assoulin, Selima Optique, Studio 189, Theophilio, led by Jonathan Cohen—have come together for a three day pop up at the Freeman's | Hindman gallery on East 67thStreet to sell their Spring Summer 2025 offerings in a close-knit, often one-on-one shopping session with the designers themselves. Underlying the effort is a deep sense of community and a 'together we're better' attitude. Shoppers perusing Christopher John Rogers styles at The Collective Spearheaded by designer Jonathan Cohen and his business partner Sarah Leff, the initiative was built to foster change to the wholesale and retail system, allowing them to directly engage with customers, share their stories, and build a more connected, resilient future for American fashion. "We didn't want to wait for a solution—we wanted to create one," said Jonathan Cohen and Sarah Leff. 'The Collective is about taking control of our work, strengthening community, and turning an industry challenge into an opportunity to grow together.' The giving spirit was also in full force for the concept space, which the Freeman's | Hindman gallery donated. 'At Freeman's | Hindman, promoting art, design, fashion, and culture is at the heart of what we do. As America's oldest auction house and one of the only major auction firms with a full-time specialist team devoted to couture and the fashion arts in the secondary market, the opportunity to partner with the innovative designers represented by The Collective was an unmissable opportunity and offers a unique chance to engage with our shared audience of clients and creative community on the Upper East Side,' said Tanner C. Branson, Associate Vice President, Head of Department Luxury Handbags & Couture Helping to produce the three-day event were The Hinton Group, Ruffino, and Christina Neault, a veteran show and event producer based in New York, who donated services. Marina Larroudé helps a shopper with a shoe style selection at The Collective Spanning two floors and four studios, designers grouped in roughly sets of four to a room, arranged with styles and brands that both complemented and contrasted one another. The brands also represent RTW and accessories, making it possible to create head-to-toe summer looks. With Memorial Day just around the corner, presumably summer month outfitting is in high gear. While many styles were aimed at women's customers, men's apparel was also for sale. On the first floor, one room housed Christopher John Rogers' colorful stripe offerings, including a popular wrap halter style and swimwear, Batsheva's feminine polka dots, gender-inclusive EMOTE and Studio 189, the Ghana-textile-inspired, artisan-created collection by Rosario Dawson and Abrima Erwiah. Across the hall, Cohen's colorful floral and denim dressing offerings sidled up to Larroudé shoes and sandals. (Its founder, Marina Larroudé, has collaborated with Cohen and the two are close friends.) On opposite walls, Rose Assoulin's crisp and colorful stripe cotton options juxtaposed with Edvin Thompson's Theophilio collection, inspired by his Caribbean roots, infused with a downtown vibe. Upstairs on the landing, guests encountered some of the host's offerings in the fine jewelry. On display and coming to a live auction on June 18th were 1980s Angela Cumming for Steuban crystal and 18K gold drop earrings, an exceptional Bulgari Spiga wrap bracelet, a Cartier Trinity bangle, and a Temple St. Clair crystal and 18K gold amulet pendant necklace. Each item would pair with a myriad of clothing styles for sale. To the right was a room that featured Alejandro Alonso Rojas' Spanish-infused slinky silk charmeuses and chiffon dresses with Ronny Kobo's accessible-luxury cotton and knit sundresses. Selima Optique's sunglass counter between them made the room a one-stop garden party outfit destination. Gigi Burris helps customers with hat selections at The Collective. The gallery on the other side also hit the 'fit search. To pair with Maxwell Osbornes' anOnlyChild's self-blouson Tees and pleated khaki miniskirts, one needs look across the room to Presley Oldham's fresh take on pearl jewelry, Hunting Season's chic raffia bags, and Gigi Burris' straw hats, a de rigueur crowd pleaser in hot weather. Burris, the sole designer with a flagship store in Chinatown, surmised that an UES customer would respond well to her summer millinery collection. On opening day, the mood was buoyant, with most designers attending to their customers at the event, which also featured direct payments to the sellers. "The spirit of the first day was genuinely energizing—there was a real sense of community among both the designers and the guests. The space felt intimate but elevated, and the energy was warm, welcoming, and refreshingly personal. Customers responded not only to the curation and craftsmanship of the work, but to the fact that they were engaging directly with the people behind the brands. It felt like a true breath of fresh air compared to traditional retail environments," said Cohen. Many thought the concept could also travel across the country, especially to secondary and tertiary markets in mid-sized cities. "As for the idea of a traveling group trunk show—we love that thought. We've definitely imagined it as a next step, even if still loosely at this stage. The response so far has made it clear that there's a real appetite for something like this, and the portability of the concept feels exciting," Cohen added. The experience is continues May 19th from 11 AM to 6 PM and May 20th from 11 AM to 4 PM.
