Well I also bought this one under 20 cents and was looking at my portfolio where to free up cash at that point. I felt it was time to take a big gain off the table and any hedging is a quick reason to do so IMO. As hedges go this is not a bad one, but that doesn't mean it can't turn toxic if gold runs to $2000 before they pay it off, which is an event I will not rule out.
To finance a mine a company typically has to use one of the necessary evils of dilution or hedging, and this company has done both, so no thanks. This company will do just fine given a steady gold price, but I'd rather hold companies with no hedges and much smaller total outstanding shares, and I do.
"Why on earth would you think a hedge at $801 is bad? It locks in massive profits and anything above that is a bonus for other production."
That is a false statement. It locks in nothing accept a gold price I think will be lower than the market price for most of their production period. Production costs, however, are not set and are in fact sky rocketing at nearly every mine you look at. While it may seem impropable I see it possible that gold is at $2000 a year from now and Western's production costs could rise to say $1000. How does that hedge look then?
As I said this company will likely do just fine, but I believe others out there will do better. Good luck to you.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
