Morning, everyone. Thank you all for joining. My name is Adam Samuelson. I am Senior Vice President. I am on the Aerospace and Defense equity research team here at Jefferies. I want to welcome you all to the second day of our annual Jefferies Global Industrials Conference here in New York. Today, we are lucky enough to have Teledyne and their Vice Chairman, Jason VanWees, here representing the company. Jason, thank you for joining. Maybe just to start at a high level, for newer investors, how do you define Teledyne today? Portfolio spans sensors, imaging, instrumentation, defense electronics, engineered systems, and vertically integrated platforms from space to deep sea. Probably missed a bunch of things in there as well. How would you frame what Teledyne does and why the model is differentiated? Yeah, sure. Again, Jason VanWees, Vice Chairman. I have been at Teledyne a little over 27 years, as of last month. Principally, I am responsible for M&A, capital allocation, I suppose, if you would like. Sometimes people are left thinking that Teledyne is very complicated, and some of that is my fault because I am willing to tell everybody everything we do in every market we serve, and vertical, and things like that, which really is not the case. I mean, it may sound counterintuitive after 75 acquisitions that we are actually a simpler company, but we are, because virtually everything we have bought has been a double-down acquisition in a market we are already in or a customer base we already serve, circa 1999, when I joined. Certain things have gotten larger and more material, but thematically, what we build, like we said, principally, we are a sensor business. That is where most of our companies grew out of, imaging sensors, acoustic sensors. Over time, though, we have grown in certain markets to be vertically integrated, where we use our own sensors into cameras for applications ranging from machine vision, semiconductor wafer inspection, satellite imaging, things that look down, like Space Development Agency programs or big science things that look out. James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble Space Telescope, Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope just launched recently. But again, we are still a merchant supplier of all those devices to any other market participants, sometimes our competitors, sometimes not. But again, in areas like unmanned systems, unmanned air, unmanned ground, unmanned subsea, we are vertically integrated and are a complete system provider. But generally speaking, Teledyne is a sensor and subsystem company that in a few areas is vertically integrated and a system-level company. Jefferies has covered us out of A&D for more than two decades, and I think that is still a big part of our business. It is about 35% of our sales is defense. Commercial aerospace, relatively small, but a good 5%. We are still, single largest end market is aerospace and defense, but that leaves another 60% of the company that is really high reliability industrial markets. Those range from things like medical, sometimes commercial space imaging, someone like a Planet Labs as opposed to a Space Development Agency, as an example. Similar type markets, but they tend to be commercial rather. Again, high reliability, not commoditized. Those are things that we try to avoid. Most of the markets that we are in tend to be a little bit niche-y, as one would say, for the proverbial highly engineered product. Most of the competition are oligopolies. Sometimes we're number one, sometimes we're number two, maybe occasionally number three, but that's really Teledyne at the highest level, I would say. That's a very helpful overview. Maybe we'll talk about the recent performance, and we'll dig into some of the individual businesses as we go. Maybe just start, the second quarter was basically the strongest quarter in the company's history for orders, sales, operating profit, 9% organic growth, 1.23 book-to-bill. Demand environment seems like it's really picked up over the last six months, just how much of that is a step up in backlog conversion versus a real improvement in the underlying demand across your end markets? Well, it's a little bit of both. Again, the backlog has continued to grow. I think we've actually had 11 consecutive quarters of book-to-bill north of one. Yeah, on an absolute basis, Q2 was the highest, both in terms of the ratio and in terms of the absolute order inflow to get backlog of about $5 billion. Funded backlog, in the defense world, we don't report contract ceiling, things like that. It's just fully funded orders in backlog. But yeah, you're right. It was 9% organic growth. In the digital imaging segment, it was 11.9%, so that was the fastest. But in the other segments, it was good too, mid to high single-digit, to get to the 9% overall. Generally speaking, in the quarter, the defense business, which again, like I said, is about 1/3 of our sales, that was double digits for the company. Most of the high reliability industrial was maybe at worst low single-digit. Most of them were mid-single-digit, a few pockets a little bit stronger, but that's why the average organic was 9%. Again, you had 1/3 of the company, nice double-digit growth, probably more like 12% than 10% on that third. That's defense. But then you had a lot of 3%, 5%, 7% on the commercial industrial business. So it was a good quarter. Yeah. With that, you raised your outlook for the year. I think it is about 7% organic growth in the guidance for the year. But relative to that first half with the 9% in the second quarter, it does imply some deceleration. I would just love to hear the framing and thought process around, is that a view on end market slowing, or is that just a view on you have short cycle businesses that you do not have a lot of visibility to and a meaningful part of your business? No, it is more the latter. Most of the backlog-driven businesses, when we talk about the $5 billion of backlog, the 11 consecutive quarters of book-to-bill north of one, that is driven by the backlog businesses, which is about half the company, but at least a little less than half the company that is intra-quarter book and ship. The orders are usually one because you get the order, you ship it. You could grow, you could contract, but it does not really build or consume backlog. So maybe there is a little bit of conservatism, and we did mention on the call that maybe there is $30 million, $40 million of upside based on trends as of July. To split hairs, I think the organic guidance was maybe closer to six, then the full year total growth closer to seven because we have a few little bolt-on acquisitions. But I acknowledge that, yeah, there is probably a little bit upside to that, just the way things are even trending in July. The sell side is a little bit higher than the guidance by just about that $30 million - $40 million, but still it is accurate. I would say generally we have been conservative. We try our best to underpromise and overdeliver. I think in the 27 years, 100+ quarters I have been there, we have probably missed our own guidance I think three times. So it has been a pretty good record. Again, it is not overly conservative, but I think we have tried to do a reasonable job of not guiding at the midpoint, say. That was- Maybe a lower quartile or something like that. That was not my implication. Yeah. So maybe we will go by end market, because I think that is a broader, better understanding for the investor community. Maybe we will start in defense. You said kind of before 35% or so of your business is defense, and if you tie in the commercial space pieces of it. Yep. Maybe that is 40% or so, if people think about that. Maybe a little less, but in that neighborhood. In the high- Yeah. In the high 30s rate, growing at a high single-digit rate, maybe some pockets of double-digit demand growth. Can you talk about the areas where you're seeing that high single-digit, low double-digit growth in space, unmanned systems, missile defense, electronic warfare, and elsewhere, and where the real kind of opportunity lies for the company over the next couple of years? Yep. So just to frame it, so defense last year was about $1.9 billion, $1.95 billion. This year it will be maybe $2.15 billion. So overall kind of 10-ish%, if you will, on a 2026 basis. If you had to break down that $2.1 billion a little more than that, the single biggest sector is unmanned systems. That is about $575 million on a 2026 basis. Without getting too detailed, if you had to break that down, there is probably $225 million of unmanned air systems that will probably be up double digits or so this year. There is about $200 million that is components and subsystems, like I said, classic Teledyne to other people's unmanned air, unmanned surface vessels. Like you have probably seen some of the news about unmanned surface vessels in Straits of Hormuz or other parts in the Persian Gulf. Those use our thermal imaging components so they see at night. We're not a system provider there, but we're a component supplier in unmanned surface. We also are a system supplier in unmanned subsea. But the components and subsystems business that we sell to all of the above, that will probably be the fastest growing thing this year, maybe up even 20%. So that's maybe a couple hundred million. That also includes components and subsystems for counter unmanned air. Ironically, it's kind of the same type of imaging components you use for counter unmanned that you'd use on unmanned. So that as a theme, both counter unmanned and unmanned, both surface, subsea, and air, that's probably the single fastest thing. But overall, that $575 million of unmanned systems will be up double digits, but you probably got 15%, maybe even 20% in that components and subsystems, which touches every part of the market. The next fastest you mentioned is the next largest rather, is space, where this year it will probably be about $450 million of revenue, almost exclusively sensors. Some specialty radiation hardened semiconductors, but mostly imaging sensors in the digital imaging segment, one of the reasons why Q2 we had nearly 12% organic growth. A little more than half of that is infrared imaging. Think Space Development Agency. It was after Q2, but some of the initial awards for Golden Dome that happened in July, those will use our sensors as an example. But we also make, again, the visible light sensors for both commercial and defense applications, specialty hyperspectral sensors for both defense, but also things like weather satellites, we use some of our equipment as well. Then probably the other parts you mentioned, I won't break them down in exact revenue, but electronic warfare and infrared imaging systems that are non-space, that might be just sold for things like helicopters or sniper sights, for example. That's a big wedge. Electronic warfare components. Again, we're not a system supplier there, another wedge. Again, probably one of the faster growing things, but a little smaller for us is components and subsystems for missiles and munitions. There was a little press release today for a European order this morning. But that will probably grow from $200 million-$240 million, so that will probably be up 20% this year. But that's a smaller wedge. Then finally, unmanned subsea. So we actually, an untraditional business for Teledyne, but given our strength in the marine market and the unmanned subsea market, we actually make the current Navy SEAL Delivery Vehicle. Again, that may not be typical Teledyne business. You might think of a Huntington Ingalls or a Lockheed, but given our strength in unmanned subsea, we actually make a manned subsea vehicle as well for Navy SOCOM. Okay. No, that is all. Well, maybe just staying on the unmanned for a second. As you think about that kind of market growth that you were describing, maybe strongest, how do you think about the Teledyne offering kind of whole systems offering and how that competes in the marketplace versus your customers on the component side? Yep. And kind of where you are seeing what market intelligence you are getting from the customer demand you are seeing on that component side, and how that maybe iterates, if at all, your own development curve on your own drones? Yeah. Just maybe to sort of to classify our business. I mean, so I think I would consider ourselves a relatively low cost producer of drones. Meaning the average ASP, just order of magnitude for a Teledyne drone would probably be in the $10,000-$100,000 range. That is kind of what we would sell. We are probably not interested in being a system supplier for very low cost Drone Dominance Program, $1,000, $2,000, things that may not even have a radio. They may be tethered. They may not have electronic countermeasures. Some of those may not even have infrared, they may be daytime use. We are happy to sell infrared components to some of those folks, and we do. But we really do not want to be a system provider. In our view, that kind of leans to the commodity end we avoid commoditized end markets. But if you want a highly capable drone out of what I would think is a reasonably low cost, again, $10,000-$100,000, where it does have thermal, it does have a radio, it is GPS jam resistant, it can work in GPS denied areas if it is jammed. It is not immune, but very resistant to electronic warfare, where some of those low-cost drones can just be dropped relatively easily. Again, we are a low-cost producer, but we are not a system supplier at the very, very low cost. But we do supply components and are happy to do that. But again, we sell to other people who would have also, say, low-cost components. The people you would think, AeroVironment, for example, is in our neck of the woods and a very good customer, has been for many years for the Switchblade family of drones, as an example, or even their observation class Puma. They are a customer of ours as well. That is very helpful. Maybe before we move away from defense, you alluded to missiles and munitions being kind of the smaller part of the wedge. It is also an area where you have seen some very large framework agreements by the DoD and some of the key primes for things like PAC-3, AMRAAM, et cetera. Those could see production growth 2x, 3x, 4x over the course of the next several years as that industrial base is expanded. Agree. How should we be thinking about that smaller piece of the wedge having a much faster growth profile over the next couple of years, or is there anything that we are missing? No, I think it should. Ironically, the two programs you mentioned, AMRAAM is radar guided, and when I said we make electronic warfare and radar bits and pieces, we make it for AMRAAM. As an example, you mentioned PAC-3. Again, we do not make the missile, we do not make the radars. We make some components for radars. But the seeker that Boeing makes that is on the end of the Lockheed missile for PAC-3, the Boeing seeker has sensors from Teledyne, because you need those kind of components and subsystems. Yeah, PAC-3 and AMRAAM are actually some of the larger pieces of that $200 million going to $240 million, which again, a lot of those awards that you mentioned were just really recently. Yeah. They were almost post quarter end. Right. This is all perspective. Yeah. Still getting the funding sorted out with the United States Congress on the framework agreements, but they need to make a lot more PAC-3s. PAC-3, AMRAAM, and even to a lesser extent, some components and subsystems for Tomahawk, things like that should be good business indeed. I also mentioned, it's not just missiles and munitions. It's a smaller wedge for us, very high growth rate, but some of the larger wedges, like space. Like I said, the Golden Dome awards didn't even happen till post quarter end. Some of the strength in digital imaging, you mentioned the book-to-bill in Q2 in that segment, it was over 1.4. The single largest award in Q2 was a follow-on award to the award we got in December for Tranche 3 Tracking Layer from SDA. Because again, like I said, we only book fully funded orders. We don't book contract ceiling. Those contracts were awarded, I think, December 19th. In Q4, we got a sliver of an order for Tranche 3 Tracking Layer, but then we got follow-on awards for that in Q2, and then the Golden Dome, those didn't happen till July. Right. Yeah. Okay. Maybe switching gears, when you talked about digital imaging growth, and some of that obviously is defense related, but talk about the non-defense parts of the digital imaging segment, and where you're seeing any of the momentum there on the industrial, healthcare, et cetera. Yep. And one of the business we have that's kind of on the long end of the short cycle, so it does have a little bit of backlog component, where the other short cycle stuff, like I said, is intra-quarter book and ship. But the specialty machine vision cameras that we make for things like semiconductor wafer inspection, again, sounds like a different market, but some of the sensors that can see microns and nanometers an inch above a wafer aren't that different from sensors that you may make to a space-based imaging platform. Again, what do we make? We make very sensitive sensors. And when you do that, one of the verticals that you serve is semiconductor mask and wafer inspection. We do machine vision cameras for fill level in a bottle, but microns and nanometers don't matter. In the other markets, they do matter. That's kind of the long end of the short cycle. You think key accounts like an ASML or a KLA-Tencor, as an example, a Lasertec in Asia, one of their competitors. That's been an area that's been getting better and good. But there has been increased revenue in that in Q2, probably double digits. That was a component of the 1.4. I think some of that was more space. But one of the components of that backlog growth was semiconductor mask and wafer inspection on the commercial side. Most of the other commercial markets, again, like I said, they were positive, but healthcare was actually 8%, but let's call it mid-single digits, sort of the guidance on the year. Just had an easy comp in Q2. Some of the electronic test and measurement business was 3%-4%. Most of them were good, but if I had to pick a standout on the commercial side, I would say machine vision cameras that are related to the semiconductor capital equipment was definitely a standout on the commercial side of the business. To put that in perspective, that's maybe $200 million or so on an annual basis. But trending higher than that right now. Okay. Yeah. Maybe switching gears for something else kind of announced since the quarter was you announced the acquisition of Varex for $1.1 billion in early mid-August. To provide an overview of the business, what attracted you to the asset, how does it impact your positioning or change your positioning in the healthcare imaging market relative to the existing portfolio that you have? Yep. At the highest level, we've been following the company for a long, long time. My first conversation with the CEO was six years ago. I think it was on a Saturday, maybe August 15th or 20th or something like that. I can't remember. But why was it interesting and why did we do it now and not previously? Why was it interesting is that the first thing I said at the beginning of this presentation was virtually everything we've bought is a complementary product in a market that we're already in, or customers that we already serve. We make a lot of vacuum devices for cancer radiotherapy in the healthcare domain. We make some for electronic countermeasures, jamming. We don't make any X-ray tubes. The processes aren't that different, but that's about 40% of their business. We understand it, but we don't make them. All complementary. Some of the same key accounts, like a GE, that we currently sell X-ray detectors to. They also make X-ray detectors like us, so that is complementary. It is complementary, not competitive. They use a technology called amorphous silicon. Ours are mostly CMOS. They do a type of technology that is called photon counting. We do not do that. In terms of the actual use cases and why that matters and why it is complementary, not competitive, there are very certain cases where CMOS is, I think, better. That is what we do. If you want a really high-resolution image at a very low X-ray dose, think you are taking X-ray video, not an X-ray snapshot. Maybe you are doing orthopedic surgery or in your heart cath lab, you are doing a video, lots of frame, frame. You want to keep the radiation low because you have a lot of snapshots, if you will. CMOS works great. Where I mentioned we make vacuum devices for cancer radiotherapy, CMOS does not do very good. Too high radiation, they get zapped. So you need the other technology that Varex does, as an example. Regarding the timing, again, I followed the company for a while. I think they sort of did a double-down acquisition prior to their spin, so it was not really theirs, but they were saddled with it. That I think was probably not the greatest, and they ultimately shut that down. Took a goodwill impairment in 2025, so kind of cleaned up their own house a little bit. Then their balance sheet was a little bit stretched. They had a convert that would have been much more expensive in an M&A scenario, would have been more equity if the convert goes in the money. Then they had a bond with a make-whole premium. All that got cleansed in March of this year for fully prepaid little bank debt. Then honestly, I think including our healthcare business and theirs and some of the laboratory and life sciences company, the Thermo Fisher, Danaher, Agilent, everybody had kind of been, including that wedge for us, sort of in a little bit of a post-COVID funk for three years or so. But that started turning around. Some of those names in Q4, some of those names like us in Q1, some in Q2, but I think the market got a little bit better, and hopefully we tried to catch a reasonable value at the bottom of a cycle. That was the reason for the timing. Got it. As you put Varex together with the rest of your medical exposure, that starts to get you to what? 18%, 20% or so of the company is healthcare medical kind of related. How do you think about the growth opportunity, growth potential of that market, that platform for Teledyne going forward? Yeah, sure. First of all, most of Varex is healthcare, but that is only maybe about 65%-70%. You will also use X-ray detectors. There are CT systems. For those who flew to this conference, when you put your luggage or your handbag in through TSA, that is an industrial CT system, and Varex makes some tubes for things like that. It is an X-ray device. Most of their business is healthcare, but a significant part of it is industrial, nondestructive test, security and inspection, things like that, is a reasonable part of their portfolio as well. To your point on healthcare and the size of the business, say, oh, maybe $600 and change from Varex, coupled with our very clinical healthcare business, X-ray detectors and X-ray generators for cancer radiotherapy, again. That is probably in the neighborhood of about a billion dollars. If you want to extend the definition to laboratory and life sciences centers, where we serve those customers like I mentioned, Agilent, Danaher, et cetera, that is probably another couple hundred million. So you have in the neighborhood of maybe $1.2 billion, so not quite, but kind of approaching on the $6.5 billion-$6.6 billion this year. Yeah, you are probably approaching 20%, but not quite on a pure laboratory healthcare, life sciences. In terms of growth rates, I do think everybody had a little bit of a post-COVID funk in that domain on the healthcare side. But then it turned around positive for us. We were 8% in Q2. Varex was a little bit lighter, but positive in their Q2. I would say it is sort of a mid-single -digit, I think, growth market from here. But to be fair, there will probably be a little bit of 80/20 around the edge on the Varex portfolio, like some of our other acquisitions. So I personally think the street sell side for them is a little bit too high for 2027. We will probably shave off a few product lines that are less profitable. But then from that point on, I think 5%, but do not expect 5% in the first year. We will probably do a little bit of 80/20 on the margin. Okay. Maybe to that point, how do we think about margin profile of the business as you properly integrate it, maybe do some portfolio pruning around the edges? How long does it take to get this business kind of or can it get to margins consistent with the rest of your medical portfolio? Consistent with the rest of the medical portfolio. I think it might be a little bit lighter. Think gross margins may be mid-30s, high 30s. Think EBITDA may be 20%, where Teledyne as a whole, even with corporate costs, is 23% in Q2. Gross margins are low 40s. A little bit less because exotic stuff, high bill of materials, so gross margin is a little bit lower. SG&A shouldn't be as high as it is. You've got a handful of key accounts in both the security inspection and in the medical imaging domain. I think we can be a little bit leaner there. Of course, public company costs go out, and things like that. I do think it'll be probably mid to high teens soon. Soon being public company costs and others 12-18 months. I think it'll probably take maybe two to three years to get to the 20. It'll be a little bit of harder work, if you will. There's definitely a good path. Okay. That's helpful. Maybe just to close out on the M&A front, balance sheet's in great shape even after Varex. Your pro forma leverage is going to be low 1.2, low 1.1.3, somewhere in that range. Just help us think about the continued appetite for M&A, the capacity internally to do more deals, especially where, these aren't very small tuck-ins anymore when they're billion dollars. Not saying they're transformative, but they're not small. How do you think about the management capacity to start taking on chunkier acquisitions going forward? Yeah. Well, both management capacity as well as balance sheet capacity, so really shouldn't be an issue. We've done 75. Varex pending is 76, so. What typically we haven't done is would we do another healthcare acquisition immediately after Varex? Well, no, because I'd say we want the person who runs that business to be focused on that business. It's being tucked into a Teledyne company. It's a complementary business in a market that we're already in. We probably won't do one of those immediately. But that leaves another 80% of the portfolio that we just talked about that is not taxed at the management level, and we certainly have the corporate bandwidth, and we certainly have the balance sheet. That said, we're price disciplined. We've looked at a lot of aerospace and space acquisitions in the last two years. Most of those we've been outbid on. Most of those haven't closed. They've been announced, so we'll see what happens, if time changes. But we're going to be price disciplined. We win auctions. We're not a bottom fisher, but we're not going to also do anything silly or pay high teens 20+ EBIT. I don't think that's wise. But we'll do those, keep looking for acquisitions. We're not at the law of large numbers yet, so I think there's plenty of targets of opportunity to keep going, even beyond this. But on the other hand, we're opportunistic with share repurchases as well. We don't have an ongoing plan to buy back stock. We don't have a comment that we're going to buy so many shares per year to limit option creep or things like that. But we are relatively aggressive after April 2024, when our stock sold off, we thought unfairly. We were quite aggressive in Q4 2025, when we think our stock sold off unnecessarily. And that may be the case now that we've gone from $690 to sub $600. It's a tool in a toolkit. We don't say what we're doing, but we have the language in our 10-K that we have more than a billion dollars still authorized, and don't be surprised if we may do some of that here in the fading days of the quarter as well. Okay. Well, that's very helpful. Maybe pivoting more realistically on the margin side. Second quarter was a bit of a high watermark. Maybe some extra benefits because of some of the tariff benefits that you realized from refunds. But business as a whole growing mid-single -digit organically. Help us think about the operating leverage and how that should translate to both margin expansion and what the ceiling you think can be for margins for the company. Yep. Just to reiterate, so digital imaging, in part because of the organic growth of the 11.9% in Q2, but in part because the tariff refunds. The margins were up in that segment, which is our largest, about 250 basis points. But in fairness, about half of that was tariff refunds. The total company was up about 120 basis points in Q2, though that tariff refunds were probably 60 basis point of that or something of that nature. Still a good margin improvement, really across the company. A couple exceptions to that. But where there were exceptions, it was because there were some tangible mixed negative things. Like unmanned subsea vehicles have lower margin than subsea sensors, and unmanned subsea vehicles grew a lot in Q1 and Q2. So the margins were lower. Again, it's okay for sales, okay for EBIT, but if you're selling, some of the systems have lower gross margins by their nature than just sensor content. In terms of operating leverage, yeah, you saw it in Q2. We're expecting this year about 60 basis points at the total company level. Digital imaging will be north of 100, even excluding tariffs, because it has the highest growth. In all honesty, though, we're actually having a little bit of mixed negative. Again, we're growing fast enough that we're still getting margin improvement. But generally speaking, and not by a big margin, but all things defense are a little bit lower margin than all things commercial, and defense is growing faster than commercial. Now, they're all doing well. As the defense this year might be double digits and the commercial stuff may be mid-single at worst. That said, that's actually a little bit mixed negative. Again, get enough operating leverage to short offset that, you still get margin improvement. But yeah, we've actually been probably negative mix the last six quarters or so. Again, still receive margin improvement on the operating leverage and growth, but borderline a little bit of mixed negative behind the scenes. Yeah. Well, the way you framed the growth outlook earlier, it would seem like that mix headwind is going to persist, if all else equal, some of the opportunities that are ahead on the defense side. So how do we think about the ability for productivity, pricing initiatives to balance that? Well, I think it will balance. It has balanced. I am trying to keep people's expectations on operating leverage a little bit more reasonable because the things that are growing the fastest still very profitable, but just marginally less profitable than, say, something like semiconductor wafer inspection. It has higher contribution margin than, say, something like unmanned subsea vehicle. It shouldn't be a surprise. Some of that is turning around, and that is what we saw in Q2, was that some of the things that have been slower growth on the commercial industrial side were a mid to high single or even in some wedges like, again, semiconductor wafer inspection, were in the doubles as well. That said, on pricing, in fairness, there was probably 3 points of price in the 9% organic in Q2 because in certain areas you needed it, and we are niche enough that you can get it. But you needed it where you have. We are not a huge consumer of memory, and there has been talk about that, but we do buy some memory. Ironically, in some of those products that go to memory makers for semiconductor. So price of the components is higher, the price of our product is higher. Certain people have talked about rare earth or germanium or things like that, and yeah, there has been price inflation. Nothing so far has constricted supply or constricted our shipments yet, but it has been an inflationary annoyance like Xilinx FPGAs circa 2022. We had probably $100 million of cost creep in 2022 for electronic components, and one of the reasons we had high single-digit organic growth was we had to probably put in 3 point, 4 point to price, circa 2022. So we will do that as necessary to combat inflation. Got it. So, you just called out some of the supply chain and framed them as annoyances. Is there anything that has maybe become bubbling up beyond the annoyance phase at this point on the supply chain and raw material or cost inflation broadly, or is it still in the manageable realm? Oh, it is certainly manageable. It has been mostly an annoyance with regard to inflation than with an annoyance with regard to constraint of supply or constraint of shipment. Again, the organic growth is pretty good at 9%, and some of the businesses, like defense, that consume some of the more exotic stuff grew double digits in Q2. So it certainly has not been yet. It could be. It is a risk factor in our 10-K. It should be. Everybody has it. But right now, it has been more of an inflation that we have priced in than a limit and a shipment, limit of shipments, for example. Yeah. Okay. I think we talked about, and the company's been growing up inorganically over time. Is there any thought, or how do you think about divestitures as part of that capital allocation toolkit? Is there any part, times you've seen parts of the portfolio that maybe this isn't the right fit anymore? Maybe the competitive set, the customer set isn't where it had been originally, and it may not be a Teledyne business anymore. Yeah. Not now. Interestingly, we've actually never sold anything that we've acquired. It's not a private equity model. We try to seek a permanent home for businesses that we buy. Now, again, there's a little bit of 80/20 in product pruning. One of the reasons why doing fantastic organically now, but one of the reasons why revenue was kind of flattish at FLIR that we bought in 2021 for the first couple of years is there was probably about $130 million of their $2 billion of revenue that was not good revenue, and it was probably not divestible products. They weren't businesses. They were products that they were losing money on every unit. Those just went away, and that was okay. But again, it did make FLIR look a little bit flattish for a couple of years. There is 80/20 pruning. Especially when we buy a business, we're not married to every single product line. Sometimes people, in my personal opinion, and this may even be us when you run a business unit, nobody wants to contract. You want to grow, but then sometimes you get married to products that you probably shouldn't be doing. Where if you were a little bit more dispassionate when you buy a business, and so there's been some 80/20 pruning. That said, we have made a number of divestitures. Since I joined, if you go to origin revenue, which was closer to $600 million-$700 million circa 1999, a third of that doesn't exist. Now, again, a third of $700 million at today's $6.5 billion doesn't seem like a lot, but a third of the company that we had, we divested over the years. We've kind of finished with that process. What we have is what we like. But again, there's always a little bit of pruning here and there if a product line doesn't make sense, especially when you do an acquisition. Okay, great. Well, I think we're just about up at time. Jason, I want to thank you, and thank everyone for joining us today. All right. Thanks, everyone.