Space is becoming critical infrastructure — but where are the investment opportunities, and what risks should investors consider? On the latest episode of WellSaid, host Thomas Mucha and guests Sean Petersen and Rupinder Vig explore how geopolitics, defense spending, AI and commercial innovation are reshaping the space economy.
Host Thomas Mucha and investment experts Sean Petersen and Rupinder Vig explore how geopolitics, defense spending and commercial innovation are reshaping the space economy — and assess the opportunities and risks for investors.
3:17 – What is driving growth in the space economy?
6:06 – Mapping the investment opportunity set
9:20 – What SpaceX teaches investors
11:18 – National security and the new space race
15:47 – AI, data centers and infrastructure in space
20:23 – Financial and geopolitical risks
28:39 – The next frontier for space innovation
Sean Petersen: The simple concept of if data centers do happen in space, and there's been demonstrations already of this by more than one company, just like everyone is hyped on fiber and optical solutions on the ground, those players will be in space, right? So laser comms has become a very hot area of investment. Similarly, you have folks working on power. The simple idea that whether you're a comms satellite or you’re a data center, you're sucking in as much energy as you can. You want to run all the time. It's kind of Sci-Fi.
Now there's a demand for that sector potentially.
Thomas Mucha: For decades, investors treated space as a niche technology. That's no longer accurate. Today, there's a long list of critical applications that are now dependent on space. Global communications, GPS, financial transactions, shipping, weather forecasting, a bunch of others – all increasingly depend on assets in orbit. As a result, space is becoming critical infrastructure in similar ways that energy grids, semiconductors and cloud computing became critical infrastructure.
Now, on top of that, listeners of this podcast will know that I've been emphasizing this topic for a long time. That's because from a geopolitical perspective, space sits at the intersection of great power competition with the US, China and Russia racing for advantage.
There's also AI infrastructure, critical infrastructure resilience, public private partnerships, choke point competition. I could go on and on here. Now, meanwhile, public and private companies are rapidly becoming strategic actors in this area as governments increasingly depend on commercial launch, communications, imagery, data analytics and spacecraft infrastructure in ways that go far beyond the traditional role NASA played in previous eras.
All of this is what makes space such a powerful investment theme. It also makes it an industry that McKinsey estimates reached $626 billion last year, and one that could exceed a trillion by 2034. So joining me today to discuss the many investment angles of today's great space race are Sean Petersen, a sector lead and a voice of authority in Wellington's private investing team, and Rupinder Vig, Wellington's global industry analyst who's a real expert on the global defense sector. Sean, Rupi, welcome to WellSaid.
Sean Petersen: Thank you.
Rupinder Vig: Thanks very much.
Thomas Mucha: Sean, we've got a lot to cover today. I'm excited to dig into all of this as you can tell. So let's start with you. I'd like to kick off with some fundamentals. Now, that trillion-dollar estimate of the market size for space I just mentioned – let's set the stage here and go over what that encompasses. So first, from your perspective, Sean, what's driving this spending?
Sean Petersen: You know, for me it's really interesting, having been an investor in space since the 2010s, the real shift for me has been the government focus. I know we're talking about private investing, but it's this commitment from the government sector to really leverage private sector solutions. What I think a big part of that – I'll call it sovereign push – is some of the activities that happened during the Ukrainian War, in particular, kind of gave openings to I'd say non-actors in that space to understand that if they wanted to have actionable data coming from space, they needed to have their own programs.
The reality is, is that a government run program probably isn't going to be at the innovation speed and scale. And I think looking at some of the blueprint of what had been done, probably in the mid-2010s, it's been a good litmus test for those governments.
And for me, once you've had that kind of first wave of success off of what was a perceived lower cost of launch, was going to build all these new companies kind of mid 2010s, you come into today, and now you can look back in the past five, six years of private companies moving to IPO and now public successful companies with EBITDA and with growth.
I think that set a very strong wave for this kind of second wave that is coming right now.
Thomas Mucha: So geopolitical factors, technology factors, market factors, they're all conspiring to push demand in this area. Rupi, what do you think about that.
Rupinder Vig: Yeah I mean look at the space since 2006. I'd say we are right now firmly more positive on this space than I think I've been in that entire sort of 20-year period. And I think Sean touched upon some of the points well. But if we think about the breakdown of this space economy, you know, more than 75% is commercial, but the real growth driver in the last 18, 24 months has been the government side which is obviously the balance. And if you think what's happened with recent conflicts, you know, things like military communication, intelligence, surveillance, and, you know, missile warning and tracking, all of these areas have really come into sharp focus for governments, not just in the US but across the globe. And I would say that where the private side fits into that is that they have been a little bit more nimble, I would say, and a little bit more adaptable in getting technology out there that is needed urgently.
The commercial side is obviously growing strongly as well, given broadband, particularly LEO, satellites, network equipment, etc., commercial imaging. And then we've got the whole weather, environmental side, but I think the government side is a bit that's really dramatically come through now in the last sort of 18, 24 months. And, you know, public companies have been a little bit slower, I would say, to react to this, partly because on a long-term period, space has not been the biggest area of growth within wider defense and aerospace.
It's been, you know, areas like naval, it's been air, it's been land. But I think now that we're seeing a much stronger growth path, I think the public companies are starting to follow suit and realize they need to catch up as well.
Thomas Mucha: Good. So now that we know what's fueling the capex here, let's dig into what the space investing opportunity set really looks like. And I’d like here to touch on sort of the major categories so listeners can understand where revenue is being generated today versus where it might be, let's say five years from now. And I'm particularly curious about this because you guys look at this subject from two very different lenses yet you often end up collaborating on company level research. And that tells me there's more and more overlap in the application of technology here. But Rupi, let me hear from you first on this.
Rupinder Vig: Yeah, sure. It's a great question. I mean, I think if you look at this industry, I think you always need to break it down between what is downstream and what is upstream. And, you know, upstream is going to benefit disproportionately from government and defense spending and downstream, while it captures most of the industry revenue and the recurring cash flow, upstream really is going to be the enabler for that downstream, if you like.
You know, we've been looking at it from a few different ways. One is where are the picks and shovel suppliers? So your components, your payloads, your sensors. And that's where a lot of the privates have been, I would say, quicker to the market and I would say have come with technology faster. But if you think about that upstream versus downstream debate – upstream, I think what you need to see there is very simply more launches.
We need significantly more launches than we've had over the last ten years. And some of the numbers that we're seeing out there obviously tell you that. We clearly need to see more and more satellite volume. We need to see faster replenishment. I think the more launches we see, the more satellites we see, the more we're going to need in terms of replenishment, replacement, so that aftermarket element is going to come through. But what I think offsets that is the industry needs to see lower unit costs. There's going to be more reusability, there's going to need to be more efficiencies in manufacturing and I think more vertical integration. So that's kind of how I think upstream will play out. When we think about the downstream side, you know, we're going to need to see more in terms of software, in terms of connectivity and analytics.
And then I think we're going to have to see, you know, more and more capability supporting more people. So wider applications, wider use of people. So that's kind of how I see this playing out over the next I would say 5 to 10 years.
Thomas Mucha: A lot of buckets there. Sean. How does that line up with your analysis?
Sean Petersen: It lines up quite well. And I think probably I would deep dive in the one area where I spent probably the most time for the past, probably 2 to 3 years – is trying to understand satellite manufacturing better. Today, it's roughly estimated around a $20 billion market, estimated to jump to $40 plus in the next five years.
And if you think of that as an indication of how space tech is growing, that's just one facet of what Rupi spoke about. And then another factor where I kind of look at, obviously, day to day, is really the venture market within the space tech and while there aren't generally true, tight reports on that number, a good estimate for that is around 10 billion this past year.
And if you think of that as the second wave of companies that have been launched and they are earlier stage – as they're growing, their revenue should grow alongside that. And you have probably around 250 new space-based companies launched in past year. And that gives you an idea of where a lot of new revenue is going to come from, added on to the existing players most folks know.
Thomas Mucha: Well, we can't have a discussion about this topic without mentioning first mover SpaceX. It seems to dominate every conversation about space economics today, dominant in the markets. So, Rupi, what does this company size and its success tell us about the overall investment thesis around space as well as the viability of mega constellation business models? I mean, how does SpaceX sort of paint the future here?
Rupinder Vig: What I think SpaceX has done is that it's moved mega constellations from what is an engineering concept to a commercially meaningful communications platform.
What SpaceX has shown is that you can reduce launch costs, or at least if you can have a path to do so then you can make it very, very viable commercially, and you don't need expensive bespoke satellites. What I would say, though, is that SpaceX is somewhat unique because it's both a principal launch provider as well as a constellation operator, so that helps them dramatically with their cost base.
And so you can't necessarily apply that to all of the other players out there. I think the other element as the final comment is that other companies - can they internalize supply chain, as SpaceX has been doing, because again, that gives you a big, big cost advantage as you scale up.
Thomas Mucha: What's SpaceX teaching the private markets?
Sean Petersen: You know, I think the idea of making sure that you have your own supply chain that controls the sensors, satellite manufacturing and kind of all those other capabilities outside of launch is core, whether it's on the commercial side or in the government side.
And I think for all the folks who have aspirations of building a constellation, I think it's given them the proof it is there. It is doable.
They're happy to do it independently, because you don't want to necessarily be in a position where you rely on your launch provider to be your manufacturer.
Thomas Mucha: Yeah, lots of development on the commercial side for sure. I want to switch though to national security. And Rupi, I'm going to direct this question to you. And, you know, as I noted at the top, and as I mentioned many times in this podcast, national security and defense are obviously major drivers of space investment, Rupi, you've already pointed to that.
But, you know, space is now a warfighting domain, as I hear endlessly from the Pentagon, from NATO militaries, other national security contacts around the world. So I'm curious, Rupi, what are the effects of this on the development of space-related industries and particularly in the context of rising geopolitical tension and all the conflict we're seeing around the world? How is this impacting the way you're thinking about the industry?
Rupinder Vig: Yeah. Great question. So that threat environment is as high as it's been for a long, long time, you know? So I think that in itself means there is a need to take up defense spending across the board, whether we're talking space, land, naval, air and second element.
And I think this is an important stat to give you: the Ifo Institute. They did some analysis that suggested that European countries had extracted a peace dividend of about $1.8 trillion since 1991. So what that's effectively saying is that's the difference between what they should have been spent on defense versus what they actually spent if they met the 2% NATO target.
Now, where we are today, there's a push to get towards 3%, 3.5%. And obviously President Trump has talked about 5% being the right number given that height and threat environment. But even if we go to three, that gives you a sense of just how much underspend there's been. The second element is really what we've seen with most recent conflicts, that's really put space into the spotlight, because it's shown that anything you can do to protect yourself using the space domain becomes critical.
And so I think that's made space go further up that priority list. In the very, very short term, there is a need for most countries to say we need to replace all the weapons and ammunition that we've been using, all of the land vehicles. So all of the day-to-day equipment if you like. But I think if you ask in all the analysis I've done, if you look at what would be next on that priority list, it is space now.
And it's really, you know, missile intervention. You know, it's anything that can do with in terms of intelligence and defending your country. And obviously Golden Dome plays into this in the US as well. So I think all of this when I put it together, what it tells you, is these political tensions have basically propelled space right up towards that top of that priority list.
Thomas Mucha: Yeah, that rhymes with pretty much everything I'm hearing around the world too Rupi, especially the impacts of recent conflicts. What we're learning on a daily basis in Ukraine, even in Venezuela and in Iran. It's demonstrating to policymakers globally that space is the ultimate high ground. Yeah, it has a really strategic value here, so I completely agree.
One of the other trends I’m noticing in my world is a lot of my contacts at Pentagon, CIA, other national security contacts are moving increasingly into Silicon Valley, into companies that are working in space, but also in AI and other defense tech firms.
I'm wondering how that’s impacting talent flow, how it's impacting the way you're thinking about this opportunity.
Sean Petersen: Yeah, it's an interesting point to raise. The trend is correct. I think a lot of that is a difference in the term of defense. I think its attractiveness to talent has shifted noticeably.
I think that concept of you working on weapons or the perception of weapons, even just 2 to 3 years ago, has shifted quite, quite a bit. And there are a lot of companies, there's some great companies out there that are doing work where they are definitely dual use, right? They are providing a service to, whether companies or fire stations or agriculture, but they may also be providing something to say, the Air Force.
And so I think the acceptability of that as a class of solutions has definitely shifted. And then from a VC standpoint, I mentioned earlier the $10 billion mark, it might be 9.4. There's like 3 or 4 numbers out there. That was a two x off of 2024 straight up. And so that shows you there is a strong appetite for moving in that direction.
And that's not necessarily capturing the defense aspects of what Rupi’s referring to if you just look at what’s going on in hypersonic among others.
Thomas Mucha: Yeah. So there's a lot more innovation to come then, that's the implication. Yeah. All right. Well, we can't have this discussion guys without talking about AI. It's becoming inseparable from natural security developments in space. I think current and future military advantage is being increasingly driven by satellites but also sensors, as you mentioned, Sean, data links, AI models, autonomous systems, other areas.
The way that I think about this is, you know, AI may be the brain of all these emerging defense capabilities, but space is increasingly the nervous system, right? Stepping back a bit, how does this megatrend of AI, the dominant conversation in markets, and all the capital flowing into this area, how does that impact both of your views on the coming investment opportunities in space?
So do you see AI as an accelerant to opportunities? Is it a risk factor? Is it something else? Let me start with you, Rupi.
Rupinder Vig: Yeah. Interesting question. What I would say is that a lot of the work I've done looking at this, there is, I would say, a little bit of resistance from governments, particularly, around the use of AI, particularly when it comes to the defense space, just because of the implications of it, I would say, and the concerns around that data.
And is that data completely private? Is it kept in-house, etc. So I'd say it will definitely be an accelerator. But with that one disclaimer. What is interesting is and this touches upon your last question as well, a lot of my companies I talk to, they are working with Silicon Valley for the first time in a long, long time because they realized that the end market has changed.
This is no longer about building a conventional fighter aircraft or a conventional tank. This is now about doing things in space, using AI to enable that data, but it's going to be, I think, a slightly slower process than people think. I think the adoption of AI in this industry will be slower than in other industries.
Thomas Mucha: What do you think of that, Sean?
Sean Petersen: Yeah. I mean, when I hear AI, I'm just telling it to data centers in space. You know, overall, for me, you know what's really happening in this space. You're starting to see the desire of redundancy. And you're seeing expendability effectively in these lower low Earth orbit satellites. And so for me at least, moving from there, it's just the simple concept of if data centers do happen in space, and there's been demonstrations already of this by more than one company, just like everyone is hyped on fiber and optical solutions on the ground, those players will be in space, right? So laser comms has become a very hot area of investment. Similarly, you have folks working on power.
The simple idea that whether you're a comms satellite or you’re a data center, you're sucking in as much energy as you can. You want to run all the time. The idea that you would have companies that are solely based on providing power in space, as in doing nothing else but transmitting power from the sun to another satellite, was kind of Sci-Fi.
Now there's a demand for that sector potentially. And so that type of infrastructure comment you made, I see, because I think order to have that data center network, you're going to have to have an incredible amount of redundancy and infrastructure put up.
Thomas Mucha: I do want to move to risks in a minute because I have some thoughts on that too. But if you could identify sort of one national security area within space that investors are still underestimating today, you know, what would that be and why do you say that?
Rupinder Vig: I think the real element that people understand, but they certainly underestimate is anything to do with missiles warning and tracking. To me, that's the single biggest area on the governmental side that the recent conflicts have shown. Capabilities are not adequate. You know, I think that's the amazing thing. If you'd asked a number of countries 12 months ago, do you think you have sufficient defense to protect yourself against, be it drones, be it missiles, etc.? The answer for most countries would have been a firm yes, absolutely have. I think now 12 months forward, the answer is a firm no we don't. So I think anything to do with that area I think is severely underestimated in terms of the need to spend.
I'd say the other area is also intelligence and surveillance. You know, that's something that has been talked about in space for a long time. There's bits being done. But I think that's an area that increasingly will take prominence.
Thomas Mucha: Yeah. I can't emphasize enough just how much actual battlefield developments are changing the priorities in the policymakers that I talked to. I completely agree with that. We’re learning things on a daily basis, and that's really rapidly changing priorities. We've spent most of this conversation on opportunities. There's a lot of opportunities obviously.
But what about some of the risks? And before I get into some of the more geopolitical issues, let's talk financial risks or other market risks. How do you guys think about the downside here? Let me start with you, Sean.
Sean Petersen: You know, from my standpoint, I guess we have, you know, I mentioned there's a significant wave of new companies that have been funded in the past 2 to 3 years. You know, I think it's important that they both have access to space but get to demonstrate their business models. Some of that is linked to launch costs, but I think some of that is actually technical hurdles that they'll be overcoming themselves for their solutions.
And I think if that is slowed down and some of that is being funded by government, right. If it that is to slow down, I think you have a sector black eye potential. Outside of that, I think if you know, overall, if the perception around talent that you mentioned earlier, if some of the space technologies that maybe get the most cash or get the most visibility are moving into a direction that might be seen as less dual use , I think that could end up with a cooling effect. Right now it’s seen as a very, very attractive place to work. So those are two things that I could see as potential risks.
Thomas Mucha: Rupi, what are the downsides here? I don't think one of them is going to be a sudden collapse in defense spending. Right. What else. What else should we be thinking about.
Rupinder Vig: Yeah. No I don't think demand will be an issue, at least not for the next decade or so. So that's probably the thing I worry about the least. I'd say things that I worry about: I think number one is we have a lot of new entrants that have yet to prove that they can operate at scale. So that's kind of risk number one.
I mean, it's one thing when you go to an established U.S. defense prime that has been in existence for decades and decades, and it's got a track record of building products and capability, that's different. For a lot of the companies that are in the space now, that's not the case. They are three years old, five years or less than that.
And so they need to prove that they can deliver on what they've promised and do it at scale. So that's risk number one, I'd say the second thing is that the investment needs right now are huge, so from a financial perspective, there isn't a great deal of free cash flow being generated by a number of these companies, and obviously earnings as well.
So that makes valuation a little bit harder to anchor to. Now, if they can generate the level of growth that they have talked about and we are seeing from a demand point of view, then I think over time a lot of these companies will grow into those multiples. But right now these stocks, a lot of them look, you know, headline basis very expensive and are not generating cash, so that makes you worry a little bit about the business model and the sustainability of that business model.
And I'd say the third element really is there's a lot of political and national security implications here where technology is being developed, will that technology be able to be sold outside of a particular country? Can other countries use that technology? So can we have technology transfer? And then is there a risk of technology being stolen? I think that national security angle becomes quite important and perhaps limits cross-selling over time.
Thomas Mucha: I've been detecting that a bit in my recent conversations too - this sort of national security fear and I think that's a potential limiting factor here as well. Okay. So we've talked about financial risk. Let's talk a little bit about some of the geopolitical or other military risks now. And Rupi, I'm going to start with you here.
If modern militaries increasingly depend on space, which we've determined that they are, what actually becomes vulnerable if those systems are disrupted? So what are the military risks as we move higher and higher, you know, in play in this space?
Rupinder Vig: Yeah I mean I think we have to tackle it in two ways. One is where does the money today need to be spent? I think the money today needs to be spent on firstly, restocking inventory because inventory levels across most countries outside of China are pretty low. And as inventory I'm referring to traditional kit that is being used: land vehicles, aircraft, weapons, ammunition, etc. I think there's a critical need to spend money to restock in those areas, but on a 5-to-10-year view, I think that will be a source of funds for space. So I'd say that old equipment, once it's been restocked to a certain level and the NATO requirement is a 30-day stocking, then I think at that point that's your big source of funds. Naval, I think, will remain critically important, particularly because of where the perceived global threat is longer term.
So I don't think naval will be a source of funding. I think air ends up over time being somewhat of a source of funds, because as we move towards unmanned, we simply need less inventory of manned fighters. So I think manned fighters, which we've spent a lot of money on globally, that becomes a source of funds and then anything to do with land, once that restocking has happened, I think that's an area. So they're the kind of areas that I think will end up being sources of funding.
Thomas Mucha: Any thoughts from your perspective, Sean, on this?
Sean Petersen: Well, I think idea that kinetic weapons in space is a reality is real. And I think folks will need to, you know, some of the areas that folks are starting to talk about is the need for consistent propulsion, right? So we talked about lower cost. So now you're going to have a higher proliferation of redundancies because you're going to assume you might lose some right. I think that's been consistent across the governments particularly on the defense side. But one of the other things is evasive maneuver capabilities and then the hardening, but the minute you harden or you put propulsion on, you’ve added to your kilograms, kilograms take up space, takes up costs for your launch. So it's kind of like this kind of circle of death on that side of it. But I think that's the reality that you'll see.
Thomas Mucha: Well, that leads me to my other risk question that I wanted to discuss with both of you. And this is moving it more towards the civilian side. You know, we started the conversation with how important space is to civilian applications, from GPS to weather e monitoring to logistics to shipping on and on and on. But, you know, as we put more and more satellites into low earth orbit, you know, I'm also thinking here about the growing risk of space debris and the potential catastrophic impacts that can occur here.
My daughter is a space scientist. She implored me to ask you guys this question. So I'm doing this for her. But one concept worth mentioning here is the Kessler syndrome. And this is the theory that suggests that as orbit becomes crowded, collisions can create debris, which creates more collisions, which creates more debris. Right. So you get this catastrophic cycle.
So how should we be thinking about that? First sort of through the investment risk lens? I mean, is this a serious concern? And how does this play into your thinking about the opportunities but also the risks here? And Sean, let’s just start with you.
Sean Petersen: Yeah. Well, as part of our investment process, we have a pretty significant ESG review process that we deep dive with. But I think having the ethos of how you're going to manage that and having that be a core part of the competency is something we test for. From the reality of a turn it to a positive, the opportunity for this space Roomba has just arrived, so you know, you do have that. They definitely have vehicles now they're working on, which will be deorbiters.
And that's something that you'll probably start to see. Whether or not they can be called debris catchers is another question.
Thomas Mucha: Yeah, I'm hearing a lot about that in my circles too, the opportunities to sort of clean up the mess. That leads to space situational awareness, orbital tracking. You mentioned satellite servicing, refueling, inspection, repairs. I think there's a whole industry that is likely to emerge here.
Rupinder Vig: And I think to echo what Sean said, I mean, you know, in our process when looking at obviously public companies, we spent a lot of time on the ESG side. And, you know, certainly all the space companies that I deal with or companies that have space exposure within their broader portfolio, this is always a question that we ask, and it's becoming more and more prominent for us and our investor base.
So I think it's something that we embed into our process in terms of stocks. But what I would say is that I think there's a whole second derivative industry that we've just talked about that’s going to emerge over time, and I think that is still in the very, very early infant stages.
Thomas Mucha: All right. Well, let's end this fascinating discussion on maybe a more uplifting note. Space has always been an area that has sparked a lot of imagination, a lot of creativity. You know, some of the greatest art out there is fiction and related to this stuff. So I'm wondering, Rupi, what are the innovations that you're seeing in your space on the public side that excite you the most?
Where do you see this going from that perspective? And I'm going to ask Sean the same question.
Rupinder Vig: You know, I think to me, the most exciting thing is that when we think forward a decade, because I think you have to think forward a decade what the world will look like, in terms of defense capability is going to be very, very different to what it has been. So typically defense capability - you know, the insurance policy that you hope you don't have to use is I've got X many number of armored vehicles.
I've got X many numbers of fighter aircraft, I've got, you know, this many number of soldiers that can be deployed at any point in time. And I've got this many frigates etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I think in a decade we're still going to have some of that capability. But the reality is that it's going to be really now, how much capability do we have in terms of space?
How much do we have there in terms of intelligence there? So I think you're going to see a whole broad shift. And the more you can have that capability in space, the less you're going to need of that old inventory, if you like. And then you layer AI onto it as well.
And I think it becomes very, very exciting because a lot of what we're going to have in ten years doesn't exist today. So the pace of change and the pace of new technology is going to be stark in this industry. And that's something that's not happened for a long, long time now.
Thomas Mucha: I like that answer. Sean, can you beat it?
Sean Petersen: I would say areas that I am probably spending time tracking and I think are nearing a reality, but maybe it's still a little early.
Is the concept of manufacturing in space and industrials in space. And so there's companies that are manufacturing semiconductors. Pure play. That's all they do. That's what they're doing. And they already have accomplished that. There's folks who are doing more general I say technical manufacturing. There's folks focused on biopharma in space. These are known things, like crystals grow really, really uniquely and cleanly in space.
And then there's folks who are actually mining asteroids, which I think is something that a lot of us would have said is far-fetched. But when you think about the critical minerals challenges that we're all seeing day to day now, the idea of that kind of cost to get there may not be as astronomical as previously perceived.
Thomas Mucha: Well, gentlemen, thank you both for spending time with us, for sharing your expertise on such a really interesting and important topic, both from an investment perspective but also societal. Technological. Of course. National security. Once again Sean Petersen, sector lead on Wellington's private investing team and Rupinder Vig, a global industry analyst and expert on the global defense sector.
Thanks for joining us on WellSaid.
Sean Petersen: Thank you.
Rupinder Vig: Thanks very much.
Views expressed are those of the speaker(s) and are subject to change. Other teams may hold different views and make different investment decisions. For professional/institutional investors only. Your capital may be at risk. Podcast produced August 2026.
Wellington Management Company LLP (WMC) is an independently owned investment adviser registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). WMC is also registered with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as a commodity trading advisor (CTA) and serves as a CTA to certain clients including commodity pools operated by registered commodity pool operators. WMC provides commodity trading advice to all other clients in reliance on exemptions from CTA registration. WMC, along with its affiliates (collectively, Wellington Management), provides investment management and investment advisory services to institutions around the world. Located in Boston, Massachusetts, Wellington Management also has offices in Chicago, Illinois; Radnor, Pennsylvania; San Francisco, California; Frankfurt; Hong Kong; London; Luxembourg; Milan; Shanghai; Singapore; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto; and Zurich. This material is prepared for, and authorized for internal use by, designated institutional and professional investors and their consultants or for such other use as may be authorized by Wellington Management. This material and/or its contents are current at the time of writing and may not be reproduced or distributed in whole or in part, for any purpose, without the express written consent of Wellington Management. This material is not intended to constitute investment advice or an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to purchase shares or other securities. Investors should always obtain and read an up-to-date investment services description or prospectus before deciding whether to appoint an investment manager or to invest in a fund. Any views expressed herein are those of the author(s), are based on available information, and are subject to change without notice. Individual portfolio management teams may hold different views and may make different investment decisions for different clients. In Canada, this material is provided by Wellington Management Canada ULC, a British Columbia unlimited liability company registered in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan in the categories of Portfolio Manager and Exempt Market Dealer.
In Europe (excluding the United Kingdom and Switzerland), this material is provided by Wellington Management Europe GmbH (WME) which is authorized and regulated by the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht – BaFin). This material may only be used in countries where WME is duly authorized to operate and is only directed at eligible counterparties or professional clients as defined under the German Securities Trading Act. This material does not constitute investment advice, a solicitation to invest in financial instruments or information recommending or suggesting an investment strategy within the meaning of Section 85 of the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz). In the United Kingdom, this material is provided by Wellington Management International Limited (WMIL), a firm authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK (Reference number: 208573). This material is directed only at eligible counterparties or professional clients as defined under the rules of the FCA. In Switzerland, this material is provided by Wellington Management Switzerland GmbH, a firm registered at the commercial register of the canton of Zurich with number CH-020.4.050.857-7. This material is directed only at Qualified Investors as defined in the Swiss Collective Investment Schemes Act and its implementing ordinance. In Hong Kong, this material is provided to you by Wellington Management Hong Kong Limited (WM Hong Kong), a corporation licensed by the Securities and Futures Commission to conduct Type 1 (dealing in securities), Type 2 (dealing in futures contracts), Type 4 (advising on securities), and Type 9 (asset management) regulated activities, on the basis that you are a Professional Investor as defined in the Securities and Futures Ordinance. By accepting this material you acknowledge and agree that this material is provided for your use only and that you will not distribute or otherwise make this material available to any person. Wellington Investment Management (Shanghai) Limited is a wholly-owned entity and subsidiary of WM Hong Kong.
In Singapore, this material is provided for your use only by Wellington Management Singapore Pte Ltd (WM Singapore) (Registration Number 201415544E). WM Singapore is regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore under a Capital Markets Services Licence to conduct fund management activities and is an exempt financial adviser. By accepting this material you represent that you are a non-retail investor and that you will not copy, distribute or otherwise make this material available to any person. In Australia, Wellington Management Australia Pty Ltd (WM Australia) (ABN 19 167 091 090) has authorized the issue of this material for use solely by wholesale clients (as defined in the Corporations Act 2001). By accepting this material, you acknowledge and agree that this material is provided for your use only and that you will not distribute or otherwise make this material available to any person. Wellington Management Company LLP is exempt from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services licence (AFSL) under the Corporations Act 2001 in respect of financial services provided to wholesale clients in Australia, subject to certain conditions. Financial services provided by Wellington Management Company LLP are regulated by the SEC under the laws and regulatory requirements of the United States, which are different from the laws applying in Australia. In Japan, Wellington Management Japan Pte Ltd (WM Japan) (Registration Number 199504987R) has been registered as a Financial Instruments Firm with registered number: Director General of Kanto Local Finance Bureau (Kin-Sho) Number 428. WM Japan is a member of the Japan Investment Advisers Association (JIAA), the Investment Trusts Association, Japan (ITA) and the Type II Financial Instruments Firms Association (T2FIFA). WMIL, WM Hong Kong, WM Japan, and WM Singapore are also registered as investment advisers with the SEC; however, they will comply with the substantive provisions of the US Investment Advisers Act only with respect to their US clients.
©2026 Wellington Management Company LLP. All rights reserved.
.