Entering text into the input field will update the search result below

Hexo (HEXO) CEO, Sebastien St-Louis on Q3 2020 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

Jun. 11, 2020 2:10 PM ETHEXO Corp. (HEXO), HEXO:CA4 Comments
SA Transcripts profile picture
SA Transcripts

Hexo Corporation (NASDAQ:HEXO) Q3 2020 Earnings Conference Call June 11, 2020 8:30 AM ET

Company Participants

Sebastien St-Louis - Chief Executive Officer

Steve Burwash - Chief Financial Officer

Jennifer Smith - Director, Investor Relations

Conference Call Participants

Aaron Grey - Alliance Global Partners

Tamy Chen - BMO Capital Markets

John Zamparo - CIBC

Rupesh Parikh - Oppenheimer

Graeme Kreindler - Eight Capital

Scott Fortune - Roth Capital Partners

Andrew Carter - Stifel

Matt Bottomley - Canaccord

David Kideckel - AltaCorp Capital

Douglas Miehm - RBC Capital Markets

Pablo Zuanic - Cantor Fitzgerald

John Chu - Desjardins


Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the Hexo Q3 2020 quarterly call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers’ presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during this session, you will need to press star, one on your telephone keypad. Please be advised that today’s conference is being recorded. If you require any further assistance, please press star, zero. Thank you.

I would now like to hand the conference over to your moderator for today, Jennifer Smith, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Jennifer Smith

Good morning. Thank you all for joining us this morning for our 2020 Q3 earnings call. We will start with a presentation by our CEO, Sebastien St-Louis, followed by a recap of our third quarter results by our CFO, Steven Burwash, before opening the floor to questions from our financial analysts.

Before we begin, we would like to remind you that today’s presentation contains forward-looking statements that involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events to differ materially from current expectations. The forward-looking statements are based upon and include the company’s current internal estimates, plans, expectations, opinions, forecasts, projections, targets, guidance, or other

Recommended For You

Comments (4)

Captainetoro profile picture
More Bravado from a fellow wHO TWISTS THE TRUTHS.....500 TIMES IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS HE HAS REPEATEDLY MENTIONED fortune 500 companies...his compensation is the only thing that is 500 times his worth...Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me....
shame on the analysts who had no teeth...
Steeley profile picture
Steeley profile picture
Strictly anecdotal but, I live less than 5 miles from the Washington State outbreak "ground zero" (first acknowledged deaths back on March 1st -5th). I have neither changed my normal routines nor taken any particular precautions (exception: when I grocery shop I use the sanitizing wipes to clean my hands and the basket, which I never bothered to do before). No masks, no particular "distancing" outside my normal respect for people's "personal space".
Two and a half months after the panic began, I'm still symptom free.

I'm a medical cannabis user (convection vape and combustion, primarily), and a 1/2-pack/day cigarette smoker.
[French studies currently underway using nicotine patches - data shows that French hospitalizations of smokers by age and sex due to covid are somewhere around 5%-20% of their representative population within the greater community.]

My wife is neither a cannabis user nor a smoker and she also is symptom free.

Since we are symptom free, we have neither the qualification nor the interest in being tested for exposure.

Here in Washington State, to date the only people who are being tested are those with symptoms or "front-line" medical/first responders. Over 90% of the tests in that screened group come back negative. The fatality rate (those who die of, or with, the infection) is about 5% of those who *tested* positive (or had symptoms indicating possible/probable infection).
"DOH includes deaths of all persons who tested positive for COVID-19 in its totals, even if the victims died from other causes, such as gunshot wounds."

Total population fatalities thusly attributed to covid-19 is 1,223 as of today 16 June, 2020. Out of 7.7 million residents, that is a fatality rate of 16/1,000th of a % (0.016%).

Another interesting recent study (global) suggests that approximately 80% of the human population is IMMUNE to the virus (would test positive when exposed, but have no symptoms), and about 5% of the remaining 20% (1% total) would die with or from it.

That extrapolates to approximately 1.5 Billion people on the planet would get symptoms from the infection upon exposure, with 78 million fatalities of or with the infection.
Of that 78 Million, 57 million people die each year globally (as of 2015), under "normal" circumstances.

So, covid could theoretically be contributing to 21 Million more people dying globally this year.
However, I said "could" because the data is based on extrapolating current death rates (occurring, arguably, among those most vulnerable to it so far), and once those fatalities are no longer part of the whole the death rate naturally declines as a %, and so the actual annual death rate could well be just a small fraction of that.
Consider that three months in we're only at 434,000 deaths globally (probably more not recorded) but this trend paces less than 2 Million global deaths in its first year (0.02% - 2 hundredths of a %)

So even the 20% susceptible (80% "immune"), and/or the actual death % of those who get sick from it appears to be over-estimated.

More likely, 90% are "immune". which tends to prove the old saw that "there's always that 10%" :-)

That's quite a bit more than SARs in its first year, but not even close to the 1918 Spanish flu's 50 million deaths (estimated) globally in its first few years. (We have treatments for secondary infections now that were not available 100 years ago, the lack of which greatly contributed to the deaths in 1918).

If you've made it this far, the point I'm getting to is that there are literally hundreds of data "studies" generating hypotheses that are:

1 - based on imprecise data combined with estimates
2 - not yet validated by controlled experimentation

Some of those studies that I have read are totally bogus, either the data contains too many assumptions to be considered reliable, or the conclusions are not supported by the data that the study results are ostensibly derived from (the VA Malaria Drug "study" was both - unreliable data manipulated by guestimates and then the results incompetently (disingenuously?) interpreted. The derived data actually contradicted the published conclusions).

So, it's all fun, it fills up column inches in newspapers and time segments on the 6 PM news, at best. Researchers and media people stay employed at least, telling you things you can freely ignore.
At worst, it's not ignored and drives political and lifestyle decisions in particular directions all in the name of "reliable science", of which they are neither science, nor reliable.

If you're not sure what to do or not do to avoid something you are not experiencing, then decide to do nothing different than what you are doing.

Indecision is the key to flexibility.

Party on..
To report an error in this transcript, .Contact us to add your company to our coverage or use transcripts in your business. Learn more about Seeking Alpha transcripts here. Your feedback matters to us!

More on HEXO

To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.