This is actually insane.

If that is very unusual for him to do or even a first time big move of this kind... yikes.

Hope some journalist/media outlet do their research and reach out to him to question why choose to do it when he did.

It's not uncommon for a company's CEO to sell stock from time to time, but over HALF.......that's very unusual!

Historically has never been a good sign. At least for them to stay in their positions. 

Half his stock? Pre-Retirement preparations sounds like.

I do wonder what the legalities are if shit hits the fan and Sony's stock starts to tank here soon for whatever reason. Could it be a form of insider trading?

If I'm an investor and I see the CEO of a company I own stock in starts cashing out such a massive amount of his own shares in the company, I sure as hell ain't keeping my stock to me, that would be a major red flag.

Hopefully he's just retiring lol

He's very young. And a new CEO right? 

Yeah, normally it might not seem so out of the ordinary - maybe he's retiring, that kind of thing.  But that much stock... and the timing?  It does raise some eyebrows. 

No this one is the other one. That was CFO before that did the audit of Jim Ryans Playstation. He moved to become CEO of whole of Sony not just Playstation. He put the younger one in charge of Playstation later on.

Isn't it insider trading for the CEO to own and sell shares in the company, given he would be privy to plans and information that the public would not know? Seems pretty shady.

Yeah I brought that up in an earlier post if it can be considered insider trading. While it would be a huge eyebrow raising event by itself, the fact that he did it while Sony is going through a huge PR nightmare brings major questions about whether he knows something bad is about to happen.

We’ll find out this week or next.

I don't know what technically can be taken as insider trading or not, but my perception was that it has to have to do with antecipating a move the market can't possibly know yet, not after it already happened, because before it happens it would potentially offer an unfair advantage over the market, which could be used for personal gain.

I think there would need to be proof the act of moving the shares is directly connected to information yet privy to the market, so I think it would need to be connected to another decision other than the announcement we already got.

But again, I know nothing technical about it in any scope.