theCUBE + NYSE Wired: Defense Tech | Dylan Serrentino-Mullins, Franklin Venture Partners

Clips
More from theCUBE + NYSE Wired: Defense Tech

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

Investor

Franklin Venture Partners

play_circle_outline Franklin Venture Partners invests late-stage companies to connect private firms with public market teams

play_circle_outline Private Capital Validating Defense Startups: Navigating Government Contracting, Budgets, and Warfighter Needs

play_circle_outline Late-stage investing emphasizes production capability and scaling over early technical risk

Info

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins, Franklin Venture Partners

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

Investor Franklin Venture Partners

search

Gemma Allen

>> Palo Alto Studio Connection, Silicon Valley and Wall Street. I'm John Furrier, co-host here with James O'Loughlin, my co-host. Welcome back to theCUBE Studio here at the New York Stock Exchange. I'm Gemma Allen, co-host of NYSE Wired: Defense Tech. And today we're talking about how SpaceX proved that space could be a venture-scale business. Now, the bigger question is what comes next? Aerospace and defense tech are sitting at a key inflection point with new tech, geopolitical pressure, and private capital reshaping an industry that was once dominated by a handful of primes. Joining me now to unpack that is Dylan Serrentino-Mullins, investor at Franklin Venture Partners. Welcome, Dylan.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Hi, great to be here.

Gemma Allen

>> So maybe just to start, give us the 101 on Franklin Venture Partners. Help us understand what sorts of investments are you guys making, size of check. Break it down for us.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, sure. So Franklin Venture Partners is the private investing platform that sits within Franklin Equity Group, Franklin Templeton's flagship public equities business, around a quarter billion— a quarter trillion AUM. Franklin Venture Partners exists to form the bonds between companies that are still private and our public market teams, our mutual fund PMs and analysts before the companies actually pursue an IPO. So we like to invest in late-stage category winners that we feel like are 2 or 3 years away from an IPO. To allow our mutual funds to build those positions, build those relationships so that when the company goes public, they can 5 to 10x their position within the company.

Gemma Allen

>> So when you are making an investment decision or call on a late-stage company in any vertical, right, you're— and I'm no VC investor, but I'm guessing you're looking at a couple of things, right? You're looking at customers, you're looking at, what the defensibility is of the tech, what the moat of that company is from a technical perspective, 5 to 10 years out. Sure. Defense tech is interesting because it seems so— a lot has happened in a short space of time and a lot of legacy thinking and legacy behaviors are suddenly coming home to roost. Right. There's been a moment of reckoning, I think, across the industry for sure. So let's start with the customers. Traditionally, government spend— it's a very safe and secure way to sell, right? It has reliability, predictability, but it has never been the sexier way in which you make money for any vertical. For defense tech, though, it's become pretty hot. Talk me through what is happening. And when you guys are assessing these kinds of late-stage companies and you see this huge DoD spend, what's your thought process there?

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, I think this moment in time you're seeing a confluence of factors come together. Acquisitions, right? We are seeing the way that the government is buying technology changing to be more favorable to newer entrants. So that certainly helps. You're seeing demand really spike. Defense budgets not only in the US but across the globe have never been bigger as a percentage of GDP, which is really a great signal for industry. And you're also seeing private capital come in and say that— and we're part of this— that these companies are actually worth backing. Right. Because before, defense tech might not have been a venture-scalable business because the budget dollars just simply weren't there, weren't going to these newer entrants. That's certainly changed. Now, to the second point of your question, in terms of what do we look for, the sort of standard venture metrics of tech team and TAM is not enough when it comes to defense technology. We like to call it the ABCs of government contracting. So you need to know the acquisition folks, right? You need to know the folks that are actually responsible for buying this technology. You need to know the battlefield people, the actual warfighters that are using the technology. So is this a tech that our men and women in uniform actually want to use, need to use? Is there a certain salience there? And you need to understand Congress, right? The weird part of defense acquisitions is that neither the user nor the buyer owns their P&L necessarily. Congress ultimately gets to decide what their budgets are. So to have a company navigate all of that is extremely complicated. At the stage that we're investing in, our expectation is that the customer or that the companies have figured that out.

Gemma Allen

>> So when we think about the TAM for any defense tech player, government is one portion of it for sure. Right. And in terms of how those deals are happening, it's definitely changing. The other TAM, it's somewhat restricted, right? Because you can't sell to everyone and everything or geopolitically or globally. There are certain levels of restrictions. So what sort of split do you guys like to see? Do you like to see a business that's like 50/50, 25/75, public-private, government/non-government? Help us understand that a bit more.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, no, we try not to be doctrinal about the revenue split, right? There are great businesses like Anduril, for instance, one of our portfolio companies where a vast majority of their revenue is coming from government and they're absolutely killing it from that perspective. I think in defense tech investing, especially in the VC world, there's been a lot of hype around what they call dual-use technology. Right. Kind of getting to your point of maybe the defense TAM isn't big enough. So we say that this tech has some commercial application as well. I think that's a little bit overhyped, but there are a few specific areas where there is real commercial use case. And I would point to a sector like space and obviously SpaceX being the prototypical example there where you have massive government TAM. Absolutely. SpaceX has won government contracts, but then you also have a thriving commercial business with Starlink as well. So there are a few areas like space, perhaps autonomous shipping eventually, where that TAM can be expanded. But I think it's helpful to be sober about how much of the budget is actually going to these newer entrants.

Gemma Allen

>> So I definitely want to get into the tech and the transferability of the tech. But first, I want to go back to something you said, which is that government has become a little bit more open to these kind of startups, right? The startup mindset. You spent some time on Capitol Hill historically. You're no stranger to the world of D.C. FedRAMP is apparently somewhat of a nightmare. Talk me through how you think they're making that process and that whole policy element around defense tech more agile? Yeah.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> So I think prior to Franklin Templeton, I was at a group called Silicon Valley Defense Group, an NGO really focused on connecting Capitol Hill with startups interested in working with government. You've seen a few key changes within the policy landscape that have helped. The elevation of DIU, the Defense Innovation Unit, to a more prominent status is sort of being that first point of entry for startups. And that really guiding factor has certainly helped a lot. There have been other— I would call them more pilot programs like APFIT around agile procuring that really focus on bringing new entrants in and transitioning that technology. And then there's things that the executive branch has done too. Recently, they announced Mobile SCIF initiative, right? Like if you want to work on classified tech, you need security clearance, you need an environment to work in. That's the SCIF. Historically, that's been really hard for newer entrants to access. So DoD is making efforts to put those mobile SCIFs in areas where startups can more readily access them as another means of making it easier to work with government. So there are things that are happening. Would I like to see them happen quicker and more expansively? Sure. But there are a few areas where certainly government's making the effort to try to transition that commercial tech at a quicker rate.

Gemma Allen

>> I want to get into the tech. So like you said, there has certainly been this kind of dual purpose. Kind of mentality, right? And it makes sense because a lot of the tech, it's like sensor-driven, it's inference-driven and it's neural networks, right? A lot of that stuff has transferability across areas and spaces that none of us even knew about 5 years ago. Right. So everything is evolving so quickly. When you guys are assessing these companies, how deeply are you looking at the tech component? How deeply are you looking at the transferability of TAM? help me understand what goes through your head.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah. So I think it obviously depends on the company and depends on the market that they're in. Ultimately, at the late stages that we're investing in, we want a lot of that technical risk to be bought down. And that's one of the things that the government has done especially well over the last 5 or 6 years is a lot of these R&D programs, a lot of these testing programs, prototyping programs, sending stuff in the field to figure out what actually works and doesn't. What we're looking at at this point in time is really on the production side. Assuming that contracts in the defense world are not always going to be handed out purely on who has the best tech, but who can produce that tech at scale. That's the signal that we're seeing from the Department of Defense at this point. And that's where I think a lot of the dollars are ultimately going to flow to, especially as these companies consider the public markets as well.

Gemma Allen

>> In terms of transferability to the commercial environment for the world of robotics or manufacturing, there is certain clear use cases, right?

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, and a lot of, a lot of the manufacturing, that we're looking at on the defense side does have applicability in areas outside of defense as well. We try to take a more holistic view, right? if you look at our marketing materials, our investment thesis is around national resilience. Defense is a huge part of that, but it's not the only part. Things like reliable supply chains, Things like AI factories, like greater automation in production, contribute to a more resilient economy, more resilient democracy, which is important for national security because it's not just a national security competition that we're in now. It's a geoeconomic competition. And all of these things are intertwined. So on the tech side, production, manufacturing, all of that is sort of a key area of focus for us right now.

Gemma Allen

>> Earlier this year, we spoke to one of your competitors, a16z, about their American Dynamism program. Right.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Sure.

Gemma Allen

>> Which is about homegrown patriotic hardware, software. those two worlds synergize in ways and it all happens here on U.S. soil. Obviously, there are challenges to that, that whole thesis, right? One, like legacy business, supply chains. I don't need to name them for you. I'm sure you're quite familiar. How do you think about that kind of landscape evolving and You talk about the broader opportunity here. Where do you think the true bottleneck is right now? And making that resilient part of your overall ethos harder to fulfill?

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, I think so. So two things I'd call out. One, I think we're going to quickly encounter general workforce issues, right? There are only so many people that these manufacturing facilities can employ. The talent pools in a lot of these areas that these facilities are going up in have dried up for lack of investment in a few years. So the really smart companies and indeed the government as well, are starting to make those workforce investments to train talent in these sort of new age manufacturing jobs that I think is going to be really important. The hope is that a certain level of autonomy will help mitigate that issue as well. But at the end of the day, there's going to need to be a lot more investment on the workforce side. On the second issue, the second thing that worries me is sort of a bottleneck. It's really the speed of government and the speed of Congress. We are now in another continuing resolution, which means we don't have a good budget outlook for the next year. 21 of the last 27 fiscal years have started under a shutdown or continuing resolution. That makes it really hard for companies to plan. Everything that we said about supply chains and negotiating rates with suppliers, with buyers all the way through is going to need to be done with a certain amount of demand signal ahead of time. And the more that Congress keeps kicking the can down the road, it's going to be really hard for these companies to plan, to raise capital and ultimately to meet the demand once it does come through.

Gemma Allen

>> I won't drill you on the Strait of Hormuz since I'll spare you that. But instead, I want to move on to what it means to be a venture capitalist in 2026.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Right.

Gemma Allen

>> Right. Because again, tech is changing so quick. Investment decisions are happening. Billions of dollars are being poured into companies at such an early stage. that world is changing so fundamentally. Right. How is it changing from the perspective of PortCo (portfolio company)? how active are you guys in these PortCos / PortCo (portfolio companies) that you're in? what has changed in the last even 2 to 3 years in the world of defense tech, especially for late stage where Yes, it's about the investment, but it's also about the network around it, right? It's about the community connections that you make.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, I think the number one thing that we've seen change recently, especially at the later stages, obviously, is that companies are starting to think more about public markets, right? There was this long trend that's still continuing of companies staying private longer, a huge reason why Franklin Venture Partners even exists in the first place. You've seen, there is the SPAC and de-SPAC era of the, 2020 and 2021 period. You had a rush of space companies go public this past year, SpaceX obviously being the most prominent one. Something that we're trying to help our portfolio companies think through now is when the right time to pursue the public markets is, because they're starting to ask more. So things that we're trying to do is get them in the habit of doing the things that public market investors, indeed our own mutual fund PMs and analysts, are going to expect the way that they report quarterly, right? They're under no obligation necessarily to report a certain way to us as a venture team, and traditionally VCs have, handled it on a company-by-company basis in terms of their reporting relationship with companies. We like to see our portfolio companies report quarterly to us because it's great to get them in the habit of doing that, and we can provide feedback not just on how the business is going, but the way that they're talking to investors. And we bring our mutual fund analysts and PMs into those conversations directly so they can talk to the same people that they'll ultimately talk to once they do go public.

Gemma Allen

>> Well, the housekeeping side of it is certainly very, very important. And we hope, Dylan, that you also encourage them to go public right here at the New York Stock

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Exchange.it's certainly a beautiful spot to do it, I'll say that.

Gemma Allen

>> It's quite the backdrop. Well, listen, Dylan, thank you so much for joining us on NYSE Wired.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, thanks for having me. Appreciate it.

Gemma Allen

>> I'm Gemma Allen here at theCUBE Studio at the New York Stock Exchange. This is NYSE Wired's Defense Tech program. Thanks for watching.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins, Franklin Venture Partners

search

Gemma Allen

>> Palo Alto Studio Connection, Silicon Valley and Wall Street. I'm John Furrier, co-host here with James O'Loughlin, my co-host. Welcome back to theCUBE Studio here at the New York Stock Exchange. I'm Gemma Allen, co-host of NYSE Wired: Defense Tech. And today we're talking about how SpaceX proved that space could be a venture-scale business. Now, the bigger question is what comes next? Aerospace and defense tech are sitting at a key inflection point with new tech, geopolitical pressure, and private capital reshaping an industry that was once dominated by a handful of primes. Joining me now to unpack that is Dylan Serrentino-Mullins, investor at Franklin Venture Partners. Welcome, Dylan.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Hi, great to be here.

Gemma Allen

>> So maybe just to start, give us the 101 on Franklin Venture Partners. Help us understand what sorts of investments are you guys making, size of check. Break it down for us.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, sure. So Franklin Venture Partners is the private investing platform that sits within Franklin Equity Group, Franklin Templeton's flagship public equities business, around a quarter billion— a quarter trillion AUM. Franklin Venture Partners exists to form the bonds between companies that are still private and our public market teams, our mutual fund PMs and analysts before the companies actually pursue an IPO. So we like to invest in late-stage category winners that we feel like are 2 or 3 years away from an IPO. To allow our mutual funds to build those positions, build those relationships so that when the company goes public, they can 5 to 10x their position within the company.

Gemma Allen

>> So when you are making an investment decision or call on a late-stage company in any vertical, right, you're— and I'm no VC investor, but I'm guessing you're looking at a couple of things, right? You're looking at customers, you're looking at, what the defensibility is of the tech, what the moat of that company is from a technical perspective, 5 to 10 years out. Sure. Defense tech is interesting because it seems so— a lot has happened in a short space of time and a lot of legacy thinking and legacy behaviors are suddenly coming home to roost. Right. There's been a moment of reckoning, I think, across the industry for sure. So let's start with the customers. Traditionally, government spend— it's a very safe and secure way to sell, right? It has reliability, predictability, but it has never been the sexier way in which you make money for any vertical. For defense tech, though, it's become pretty hot. Talk me through what is happening. And when you guys are assessing these kinds of late-stage companies and you see this huge DoD spend, what's your thought process there?

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, I think this moment in time you're seeing a confluence of factors come together. Acquisitions, right? We are seeing the way that the government is buying technology changing to be more favorable to newer entrants. So that certainly helps. You're seeing demand really spike. Defense budgets not only in the US but across the globe have never been bigger as a percentage of GDP, which is really a great signal for industry. And you're also seeing private capital come in and say that— and we're part of this— that these companies are actually worth backing. Right. Because before, defense tech might not have been a venture-scalable business because the budget dollars just simply weren't there, weren't going to these newer entrants. That's certainly changed. Now, to the second point of your question, in terms of what do we look for, the sort of standard venture metrics of tech team and TAM is not enough when it comes to defense technology. We like to call it the ABCs of government contracting. So you need to know the acquisition folks, right? You need to know the folks that are actually responsible for buying this technology. You need to know the battlefield people, the actual warfighters that are using the technology. So is this a tech that our men and women in uniform actually want to use, need to use? Is there a certain salience there? And you need to understand Congress, right? The weird part of defense acquisitions is that neither the user nor the buyer owns their P&L necessarily. Congress ultimately gets to decide what their budgets are. So to have a company navigate all of that is extremely complicated. At the stage that we're investing in, our expectation is that the customer or that the companies have figured that out.

Gemma Allen

>> So when we think about the TAM for any defense tech player, government is one portion of it for sure. Right. And in terms of how those deals are happening, it's definitely changing. The other TAM, it's somewhat restricted, right? Because you can't sell to everyone and everything or geopolitically or globally. There are certain levels of restrictions. So what sort of split do you guys like to see? Do you like to see a business that's like 50/50, 25/75, public-private, government/non-government? Help us understand that a bit more.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, no, we try not to be doctrinal about the revenue split, right? There are great businesses like Anduril, for instance, one of our portfolio companies where a vast majority of their revenue is coming from government and they're absolutely killing it from that perspective. I think in defense tech investing, especially in the VC world, there's been a lot of hype around what they call dual-use technology. Right. Kind of getting to your point of maybe the defense TAM isn't big enough. So we say that this tech has some commercial application as well. I think that's a little bit overhyped, but there are a few specific areas where there is real commercial use case. And I would point to a sector like space and obviously SpaceX being the prototypical example there where you have massive government TAM. Absolutely. SpaceX has won government contracts, but then you also have a thriving commercial business with Starlink as well. So there are a few areas like space, perhaps autonomous shipping eventually, where that TAM can be expanded. But I think it's helpful to be sober about how much of the budget is actually going to these newer entrants.

Gemma Allen

>> So I definitely want to get into the tech and the transferability of the tech. But first, I want to go back to something you said, which is that government has become a little bit more open to these kind of startups, right? The startup mindset. You spent some time on Capitol Hill historically. You're no stranger to the world of D.C. FedRAMP is apparently somewhat of a nightmare. Talk me through how you think they're making that process and that whole policy element around defense tech more agile? Yeah.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> So I think prior to Franklin Templeton, I was at a group called Silicon Valley Defense Group, an NGO really focused on connecting Capitol Hill with startups interested in working with government. You've seen a few key changes within the policy landscape that have helped. The elevation of DIU, the Defense Innovation Unit, to a more prominent status is sort of being that first point of entry for startups. And that really guiding factor has certainly helped a lot. There have been other— I would call them more pilot programs like APFIT around agile procuring that really focus on bringing new entrants in and transitioning that technology. And then there's things that the executive branch has done too. Recently, they announced Mobile SCIF initiative, right? Like if you want to work on classified tech, you need security clearance, you need an environment to work in. That's the SCIF. Historically, that's been really hard for newer entrants to access. So DoD is making efforts to put those mobile SCIFs in areas where startups can more readily access them as another means of making it easier to work with government. So there are things that are happening. Would I like to see them happen quicker and more expansively? Sure. But there are a few areas where certainly government's making the effort to try to transition that commercial tech at a quicker rate.

Gemma Allen

>> I want to get into the tech. So like you said, there has certainly been this kind of dual purpose. Kind of mentality, right? And it makes sense because a lot of the tech, it's like sensor-driven, it's inference-driven and it's neural networks, right? A lot of that stuff has transferability across areas and spaces that none of us even knew about 5 years ago. Right. So everything is evolving so quickly. When you guys are assessing these companies, how deeply are you looking at the tech component? How deeply are you looking at the transferability of TAM? help me understand what goes through your head.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah. So I think it obviously depends on the company and depends on the market that they're in. Ultimately, at the late stages that we're investing in, we want a lot of that technical risk to be bought down. And that's one of the things that the government has done especially well over the last 5 or 6 years is a lot of these R&D programs, a lot of these testing programs, prototyping programs, sending stuff in the field to figure out what actually works and doesn't. What we're looking at at this point in time is really on the production side. Assuming that contracts in the defense world are not always going to be handed out purely on who has the best tech, but who can produce that tech at scale. That's the signal that we're seeing from the Department of Defense at this point. And that's where I think a lot of the dollars are ultimately going to flow to, especially as these companies consider the public markets as well.

Gemma Allen

>> In terms of transferability to the commercial environment for the world of robotics or manufacturing, there is certain clear use cases, right?

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, and a lot of, a lot of the manufacturing, that we're looking at on the defense side does have applicability in areas outside of defense as well. We try to take a more holistic view, right? if you look at our marketing materials, our investment thesis is around national resilience. Defense is a huge part of that, but it's not the only part. Things like reliable supply chains, Things like AI factories, like greater automation in production, contribute to a more resilient economy, more resilient democracy, which is important for national security because it's not just a national security competition that we're in now. It's a geoeconomic competition. And all of these things are intertwined. So on the tech side, production, manufacturing, all of that is sort of a key area of focus for us right now.

Gemma Allen

>> Earlier this year, we spoke to one of your competitors, a16z, about their American Dynamism program. Right.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Sure.

Gemma Allen

>> Which is about homegrown patriotic hardware, software. those two worlds synergize in ways and it all happens here on U.S. soil. Obviously, there are challenges to that, that whole thesis, right? One, like legacy business, supply chains. I don't need to name them for you. I'm sure you're quite familiar. How do you think about that kind of landscape evolving and You talk about the broader opportunity here. Where do you think the true bottleneck is right now? And making that resilient part of your overall ethos harder to fulfill?

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, I think so. So two things I'd call out. One, I think we're going to quickly encounter general workforce issues, right? There are only so many people that these manufacturing facilities can employ. The talent pools in a lot of these areas that these facilities are going up in have dried up for lack of investment in a few years. So the really smart companies and indeed the government as well, are starting to make those workforce investments to train talent in these sort of new age manufacturing jobs that I think is going to be really important. The hope is that a certain level of autonomy will help mitigate that issue as well. But at the end of the day, there's going to need to be a lot more investment on the workforce side. On the second issue, the second thing that worries me is sort of a bottleneck. It's really the speed of government and the speed of Congress. We are now in another continuing resolution, which means we don't have a good budget outlook for the next year. 21 of the last 27 fiscal years have started under a shutdown or continuing resolution. That makes it really hard for companies to plan. Everything that we said about supply chains and negotiating rates with suppliers, with buyers all the way through is going to need to be done with a certain amount of demand signal ahead of time. And the more that Congress keeps kicking the can down the road, it's going to be really hard for these companies to plan, to raise capital and ultimately to meet the demand once it does come through.

Gemma Allen

>> I won't drill you on the Strait of Hormuz since I'll spare you that. But instead, I want to move on to what it means to be a venture capitalist in 2026.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Right.

Gemma Allen

>> Right. Because again, tech is changing so quick. Investment decisions are happening. Billions of dollars are being poured into companies at such an early stage. that world is changing so fundamentally. Right. How is it changing from the perspective of PortCo (portfolio company)? how active are you guys in these PortCos / PortCo (portfolio companies) that you're in? what has changed in the last even 2 to 3 years in the world of defense tech, especially for late stage where Yes, it's about the investment, but it's also about the network around it, right? It's about the community connections that you make.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, I think the number one thing that we've seen change recently, especially at the later stages, obviously, is that companies are starting to think more about public markets, right? There was this long trend that's still continuing of companies staying private longer, a huge reason why Franklin Venture Partners even exists in the first place. You've seen, there is the SPAC and de-SPAC era of the, 2020 and 2021 period. You had a rush of space companies go public this past year, SpaceX obviously being the most prominent one. Something that we're trying to help our portfolio companies think through now is when the right time to pursue the public markets is, because they're starting to ask more. So things that we're trying to do is get them in the habit of doing the things that public market investors, indeed our own mutual fund PMs and analysts, are going to expect the way that they report quarterly, right? They're under no obligation necessarily to report a certain way to us as a venture team, and traditionally VCs have, handled it on a company-by-company basis in terms of their reporting relationship with companies. We like to see our portfolio companies report quarterly to us because it's great to get them in the habit of doing that, and we can provide feedback not just on how the business is going, but the way that they're talking to investors. And we bring our mutual fund analysts and PMs into those conversations directly so they can talk to the same people that they'll ultimately talk to once they do go public.

Gemma Allen

>> Well, the housekeeping side of it is certainly very, very important. And we hope, Dylan, that you also encourage them to go public right here at the New York Stock

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Exchange.it's certainly a beautiful spot to do it, I'll say that.

Gemma Allen

>> It's quite the backdrop. Well, listen, Dylan, thank you so much for joining us on NYSE Wired.

Dylan Serrentino-Mullins

>> Yeah, thanks for having me. Appreciate it.

Gemma Allen

>> I'm Gemma Allen here at theCUBE Studio at the New York Stock Exchange. This is NYSE Wired's Defense Tech program. Thanks for watching.