Cofounder, Apollo Global Management
Josh Harris on Investing Beyond Private Equity | WSJ
In an interview with WSJ on February 3, 2026, the 26North founder discusses the evolution of his investing mindset from private equity to other alternative investments, including sports franchise ownership. He also gives his outlook on the economy, critique of the Fed chair Kevin Warsh and assessment of the private credit market.
About Josh Harris
Josh Harris, who founded 26North and is the managing partner of the Philadelphia 76ers, discussed the evolution of sports ownership and private credit markets in a February 2026 interview with the Wall Street Journal. Harris said he expects ownership caps in professional sports leagues to "get more flexible" over time, noting that teams have become more capital-intensive and that leagues limit debt. He also said he believes "it's not going to end well" for some retail investors in structured credit products, arguing they do not understand the duration or liquidity risks. In May 2026, Harris and HBSE Sports president Bob Myers held multiple media availabilities to discuss the firing of general manager Daryl Morey and the team's future direction. Harris said he considered Morey a friend while acknowledging his frustration that the team had not progressed past the second round of the playoffs, adding that "no one's more frustrated than me." Myers said he would oversee the search for a new head of basketball operations and that the front office had the "green light" to spend into the luxury tax. When asked about the viability of a three-max-player roster under the league's new collective bargaining agreement, Myers said the team "didn't get it done this year with three guys, but that doesn't mean it can't be done" while also stating that roster construction and depth should be re-evaluated.
Transcript (22 segments)
✨ AI-enhanced transcript with speaker attribution
I
Interviewer0:00
So, I want to start off—we'll get to practical things, I promise—but I did want to start off a little bit philosophically. I was watching a business news channel that shall not be named this morning, and they had the author of a book called Doom Loop on. It strikes me that the economy has been in a doom loop of geopolitical tension, shocks of all types, but the market has kept progressing in so many ways. Has the nature of investors, the market, and investing changed over your experience in this business?
J
Josh Harris0:37
Yeah, obviously things have changed. I would say the markets were up 20% here and 30% internationally. I think people looked through some of the geopolitical tensions and other issues like tariffs, and they saw the strength in the market being driven by seven stocks. So if you look at the value creation in the market, it was the Mag 7 that had a disproportionate amount of value creation. Then you have this bifurcation where the big companies are getting bigger; the bottom 200 stocks are less than 10% of the S&P 500 now. So those big tech giants and all the economic activity going on in the future have lifted the market even though a bunch of the market is being left behind.
I
Interviewer1:30
Right. So, do you think investor behavior has caught up to that, or has it become so efficient that people are already trading far enough in the future?
J
Josh Harris1:40
I think what's happened is that if you look at the markets, 50% are now passive, so it's a loop: if Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Nvidia, or whoever is going up, the index rebalances, and more capital flows in, which is another structural component. But I'm actually more optimistic—I wouldn't say there's a doom loop. There are hot spots geopolitically and tariffs, but growth was underestimated: $600 billion in investment from seven or eight companies building data centers and AI. Plus, the big beautiful bill and deregulation. Today, growth is causing the Fed to pause; they didn't lower rates, and that drives the market. Financial conditions are tightening, so you sometimes see the opposite of what you expect. The market was trained by COVID and the financial crisis that Fed money improves fundamentals, so it looked through volatility. Now, things are choppier, with assets like Bitcoin trading off. There's $7 trillion in money markets waiting to come in.
I
Interviewer5:25
Now I'll ask you the Kevin Walsh question: your reaction to his being nominated for Fed chair, if it changes how you look at opportunities or addresses concerns about overall policy.
J
Josh Harris5:25
Yeah, so first of all, I think he's a good pick. Solid private sector background, but also public sector having served on the Fed. He's sensible. His history is a little bit hawkish, though some comments have been different. I think the market's looking through that, and it removes an uncertainty from the market, which is helpful. Treasuries and money markets didn't react much, which is positive. The FOMC is 12 voting members, and you need seven to do anything. Even last week, they didn't lower rates, and there were two dissenters. The Fed is 10-2. Even if the chairman changes, he has to coalesce the institution; he's one vote. I'm glad for a steady hand—I know him, and he'll look at data and be smart about decision-making and running a process.
I
Interviewer6:59
Great. Now a little bit about 26 North and the gaps in the market and the ideas that led you to start this firm. We were talking about semi-retirement backstage. What got you back in the game? Is the thesis you started this firm with still pretty much intact? What is it, and where are you seeing opportunities these days?
J
Josh Harris7:23
Yes, so first, personally, I did a startup at age 55—some people love to work and build amazing institutions, and I enjoy it. You got to do something you love. As a business matter, when I started at Apollo, there was the fixed income group, equity group, and alternatives down the hall. A few people were doing private deals, incredibly alpha-oriented, generating risk-adjusted returns. Now, alternatives is a multi-trillion-dollar business with huge firms, hundred to $300 billion market caps. There's been a bifurcation in the alt space; it's institutionalized. Big public companies are now the beta of alts. Anything below a $20 billion business isn't worth their time. So the size of private equity funds and credit vehicles is now 5, 10, 25, 30 billion, leaving a vast array of companies less focused on. On the other side, they're not getting funded. Between 2008 and COVID, interest rates went down, and there was demand for alts, so firms became asset managers. I decided to build a next-generation alts firm with Apollo-style talent, an integrated platform, alpha creation, debt trading, industry expertise, and a strategic partnership with McKinsey, deployed in areas with less developed ecosystems. I'm the largest investor, paying the same fees, and our economics are structured around returns, not size. Talent is key—people eat strategy for breakfast. This attracted the team, and we're now at $30 billion in 3 years, growing responsibly.
I
Interviewer11:33
Right. Do you find are there any sectors or asset classes in particular that are catching your eye these days that are more interesting and haven't been saturated with capital?
J
Josh Harris11:43
Yeah, so I think digital infrastructure—there's a middle and small size of that market with huge demand for capital. Whether lending or investing in smaller data centers, there's opportunity. The middle market itself, below the top 10 firms, has no capital. Of our six deals, four have been from private equity funds at the end of their 10-year life. The public markets have bifurcated—now about 4,000 public companies down from 8,000, with thousands of private companies ignored. So you can do private equity-style deals buying cash flow cheaply. Hybrid areas are interesting too. Private credit continues to be 200 to 300 basis points better than levered loans or high yield, though some headlines are overblown.
I
Interviewer13:27
Right. Do you think—let's talk about private credit for a second. We've seen a washout today in some private equity players big on private credit and software. I guess you're happy you're not publicly traded today, but do you think the momentum and frenzy have pushed this market over its skis a bit?
J
Josh Harris13:32
I led with my chin.
I
Interviewer13:34
Great. Or do you still think the quality of deals is good?
J
Josh Harris13:55
Again, credit markets are tight across the board—structured credit, asset-backed, consumer credit. High yield is a bit looser. It's due to the wall of money. Private credit is really two businesses: senior secured lending and private investment grade credit. The latter is bigger. As Warren Buffett said, when the yes, there was a lot of capital available, people chased it. Some went too fast. But deals not going well are idiosyncratic—some fraud, failed business models. Yes, the business expanded too quickly, but most private credit still offers 200 to 300 basis points over public markets with better documents and PE-style diligence. It's a good business, but you have to be careful with the manager you pick. It's harder now, requiring more credit picking—right companies, capital structures. You have to be with the right firm.
I
Interviewer15:47
If 2026 does turn out to be the year of the IPO, as John Gray said today, do you think you'll see as many private equity runoff opportunities, or will they lock into the public markets?
J
Josh Harris16:02
I don't see the public markets heading in that direction. The stuff we do—buying companies that grow but aren't incredibly high-growth, middle-market companies with cash flow—the public markets aren't interested. They're bifurcating to big companies. Unless there's a radical change, people have been talking about the return of the IPO market for a long time, and private equity continues to take in more money than it gives back. You have to go back 10 years to get money back. I don't see a radical change in public markets bailing out private equity. If it happens, it would have to be a big number, and our middle-market focus doesn't align with that opportunity.
I
Interviewer17:23
So now the idea of more retail investors, individual investors, family offices getting into private markets—do you think that changes the entire risk profile? How do you think about that competitively and as a market observer, is the behavior accretive to the overall lifespan of investments?
J
Josh Harris17:44
Yeah, I've been in the business a long time and seen this before. Private markets started with endowments, then US pensions, then sovereign wealth funds. The last opportunity for big alt managers is retail. You have to separate sophisticated family offices from smaller investors who need to live on their money. Many retail-friendly products are being marketed strongly, and retail is only 2-3% allocated—it's the last big pocket of capital. My view is it's not going to end well. Many retail investors don't understand duration or that new structures may not be liquid when things go wrong. In bad markets, these 40Act structures get illiquid and trade down radically. I hope the industry does a better job educating about risks, duration, and liquidity, but I fear we're not. Retail money pours in upfront and has to be invested quickly, hurting returns for everyone. We're not taking swaths of retail money; we're taking institutional and high net worth, which are different.
I
Interviewer20:02
I'm reminded—I covered retail brokerage when I was a young reporter—of the old saying: investments aren't bought, they're sold. It just changes. This is the point we're at now. I want to talk a little bit about sports because I've heard you talk about this before, and you're so thoughtful.
J
Josh Harris20:20
Yes, so the two things that would surprise people: one, when you buy a sports team, you're a public steward for a city. People really care—when the Commanders win, Washington is happy; when they lose, they're not. In Philly, the Sixers. Your job is to win championships and engage with the city. You're a public figure—everything you do is covered. I bought big companies like Lyondell, but no one cares about polypropylene; everyone cares about the Sixers' starting lineup. You have to act appropriately and be a steward. If the city sniffs out you're focused on money, they'll dislike you. Surprisingly, because of international audience growth—NBA in China, NFL in Spain—and media globalization, while doing everything for the city, the growth in media value has been incredible. The NFL is up 4x in 10 years, the NBA more, driven by media growth that isn't stopping. Netflix, Amazon, Apple are making massive commitments, and AI will change how sports is delivered—gaming, betting, social media, stats, virtual reality. Sports as anchor tenants in communities, like rebuilding RFK Stadium in DC ($4 billion project) and building an arena in Philly with Comcast, allow affordable housing, jobs, mixed use. There's been a breakdown in community, and sports bring everyone together regardless of religion, color, or socioeconomic status. We must ensure tickets are affordable and everyone is included.
I
Interviewer26:56
Do you think in terms of the NFL, it has a cap on outside investment from private equity? Do you get the sense that participation will increase or the cap will be raised anytime soon because of the need to compete across streaming, ticket sales, merchandise—it's highly capital intensive. Does that need for capital continue to alter the landscape of ownership?
J
Josh Harris27:31
I do. The NFL is very thoughtful about this. If you look at private equity firms getting into the NBA, NFL, there are caps, but I would expect over time in all leagues. These are big businesses now, getting really big and very capital intensive. You can't put much debt on—leagues don't allow it. It's one thing to invest a billion, but as you go to five or seven billion, it gets very hard. The leagues are thinking about that constantly. I think the natural evolution is that these caps will get more flexible.