Exactly, those on the phone telling their trader to buy March straddles, did so to make money with long vega on the implied vol shift. A straddle has the most vega and when you know when important data is coming to light through info obtained on an analyst meeting, you want to buy the straddle/vega cheap. They probably sold later that day when the IV's where higher....
. . . and they actually were trading on inside information, as the news was not really "out" when they placed those trades.
No that's not true. Using that logic news would never be 'out' until everybody was aware of it. Since the information was released to a large number of analysts at the same time the news was no longer 'inside'. How quickly you get your trade in after the release of ANY news depends on how closely you monitor news sources. ANY news will be 'inside' until it is announced on TV on the evening news... even then there are those who don't watch the evening news and they might STILL complain the news is 'inside'. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insiderinformation.asp i.e. based on 'NON PUBLIC information'. The information became public the second I announced it to the meeting. In effect I created the information at that moment. What if I was wrong and the data was not released for another month? I have been wrong before.
It's out the moment someone from investor relations or CFO or CEO tells you... even when it's just to you on the phone... everything is on the record. If it shouldn't be released yet, it's the company's fault, not the trader...
Re: the insider trading issue: it is instructive to reread the Martha Stewart case. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/b...w-martha-stewart-indicted-us-obstruction.html It's funny to note that James B. Comey, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York at the time was responsible for bringing the case against Martha. (recognize the name?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey