Investing Lessons from the Poker Table

I hate to disappoint, but I’m not going to stick my neck in the middle of that debate.

But whether we agree that investing and gambling are similar, there are some general ideas from the game of poker that can be adapted quite well for investing. And, heck, if there’s the possibility that it’ll make you a better investor, is it worth fretting about the source?

Lesson 1: You don’t have to play every hand
One of the quickest ways to make your chip stack disappear in poker is to blindly play every hand dealt to you. In a 10-player Texas Hold ‘em game, you’re only forced to bet 20% of the time, and even then they’re only small bets. You can throw away every other hand that’s dealt to you if you want, and it won’t cost you a dime.

But why would you throw away any cards? Well, a two of diamonds and a six of clubs can theoretically become a full house, but you start out with the odds stacked heavily against you when you play a hand like that. Waiting for something like a pair of kings or a queen and jack of spades gives you a much better chance of seeing a return on the money that you’re wagering.

The same holds true for investing. There’s a possibility that CIT Group (NYSE: CIT) could magically avoid bankruptcy and return a bonanza for shareholders. Or Sirius XM Radio (Nasdaq: SIRI) could finally prove the critics wrong, start posting huge profits, and watch its stock fly. But let’s face it, both are long shots, and if you’re looking for solid, predictable returns to build a retirement nest egg, throwing piles of money at either stock is probably not the best idea.

On the flip side, companies like Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) and Honeywell (NYSE: HON) positively ooze predictability and solid returns over the long run. Investing in companies like these — assuming you’re paying a fair price — simply gives shareholders a much higher probability of seeing returns from their investment. And, heck, investors don’t even have to wait for rewards since both currently pay dividends that exceed the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries.

Lesson 2: Play your cards right
Kenny Rogers immortalized yet another lesson that we can take from poker when he sang: “You got to know when to hold ‘em / know when to fold ‘em / know when to walk away / and know when to run.”

In both poker and investing, you’re faced with continually changing information. The best poker players and investors are those who not only make the most accurate analysis of the available information, but use that analysis to drive good decision making, whether that’s — in investing — buying, selling, or just sitting tight.

IBM (NYSE: IBM) is a great example of the constantly changing tides that investors can take advantage of. The company had one of the truly great growth stocks in its early years and delivered impressive gains. But not all that long ago it faced some major challenges as the PC market commoditized and its bread-and-butter mainframe market turned into a sleepy niche.

More recently, IBM has found a new life in transitioning to offering higher-margin software and services. Just like recognizing when you have a possible straight flush developing and betting accordingly, investors who figured out what was going on at IBM and invested accordingly have been handsomely rewarded. Over the past five years, its stock has substantially outperformed the S&P index.

Lesson 3: Be choosy with your “all-in” moments
It’s certainly exciting to watch a poker pro push all of his chips into the middle of the table and call “all in.” But it’s important to remember that top-notch players have run through a bunch of mental math to determine that the odds are heavily in their favor when they make a call like that.

Having all of your money invested at all times can be one of the easiest ways to go about investing, but it can also put you at a disadvantage. Not only will you absorb the full brunt of declines such as the one we’ve been living through, but it also leaves you with very little dry powder to invest when stocks do fall. However, with just a little more activity and attention, investors can keep an eye on stock valuations and adjust how much they have invested based on how pricey the market is.

If your all-in moments are restricted to times when the market is trading near or below its long-term average valuation, then you can shift the odds of market-beating returns further in your favor. Fortunately, there are many great tools available for tracking the overall market’s valuation, including my favorite, professor Robert Shiller’s 10-year average P/E spreadsheet.

When it comes to individual stocks, though, the picture is a little bit different. Although elite investors like Berkshire Hathaway’s (NYSE: BRK-A) Warren Buffett can make comments about being willing to go all in on Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC), most mere mortals are best served by avoiding an all-in call — having their entire portfolio — on a single stock.

Putting away the cards
While having a working knowledge of poker might help bring some of the lessons above to life, you don’t have to ever play a single hand to put them to work. To review, here are three of the investing lessons that we can take from the poker table:

1. Wait for the best investment opportunities — there’s no harm in passing on a stock if you aren’t convinced that it’s a worthwhile investment.
2. Always be on top of new information and be willing to take action when necessary.
3. Going “all in” in your portfolio should be reserved for when market factors are highly attractive.

You can take these three lessons and start putting them to use right now.

Source: Fool.com

America's no.1 export is debt

When you look at things this way, it becomes clearer what the frenzy in New York City and Washington is all about. There are major quality issues with our nation’s flagship product. The authorities have acknowledged the problem–”This is a humbling, humbling time for the United States of America” is how Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put it in one TV interview. So now Paulson & Co. are recalling defective financial products en masse, slapping GUARANTEED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT labels on some of them and replacing others outright with U.S. treasuries.

It’s textbook crisis management, similar to Johnson & Johnson’s famously forthright and successful reaction to the Tylenol tampering scare of 1982. So far, so good. But while Johnson & Johnson was soon able to restore Tylenol’s lost market share, the U.S. faces a different challenge.

Our quandary is that we are apparently not capable of safely manufacturing $700 billion in debt securities to sell to foreigners every year, as we’ve been doing since 2005. (That this is the same total as Treasury’s bailout plan is just a coincidence.) If we keep trying to borrow that much from overseas–as you’ve probably gathered, selling debt means borrowing money–today’s quality problems may soon seem petty. For now, we can still reassure buyers around the world by slapping that GUARANTEED label on our debt. But as financial crisis and economic slowdown cause government debts to burgeon, and as commitments to Social Security and Medicare loom closer as baby boomers retire, that confidence could easily fade.

So while today’s crisis management makes a certain amount of sense, returning to the borrow-and-spend status quo afterward seems like a disastrous idea. If the U.S. is to have a future as an economic power, its long love affair with borrowed money has to end. Right? “I hesitate to say yes, because people–including me–have been saying that it had to come to an end now for years, and it hasn’t,” says R. Taggart Murphy, an expert on global capital flows who teaches at the University of Tsukuba’s business school in Tokyo. Then he adds, “It looks pretty clearly like we’re in the endgame right now.”

This country’s move into big-time debt exports began with the big-time government deficits of the early 1980s–which had to be financed by somebody. “The Reagan Revolution was essentially an experiment in seeing how much money America could borrow from overseas,” says Murphy, who at the time was an investment banker in Tokyo. The answer was lots. Guided by Murphy and his ilk, Japan snapped up U.S. treasuries and other debt, keeping interest rates here from exploding as many had feared.

In the early 1990s, as the U.S. got its fiscal house in order, the capital inflows from overseas shrank. Late in the decade, they returned, with a twist: foreign investors and companies were buying into corporate America to get in on an economic boom. That boom ended in 2001. But the Bush Administration soon began running deficits, and foreigners discovered an American financial product to which they’d never paid much heed before: mortgage securities.

The result was a staggering increase in capital inflows. The inevitable flip side was a staggering rise in the current account deficit–basically, the trade deficit plus a few other things. It grew from $114 billion in 1995 to $417 billion in 2000 to a record $788 billion in 2006 before falling to $731 billion, or 5% of GDP, last year. Political discussion of this shortfall usually focuses on trade agreements and exchange rates. But if the U.S. simply stopped borrowing so much–that is, if Washington balanced its budget and restrained financial companies from loading U.S. households with ever more debt–the current account deficit would evaporate.

The housing crash and resulting credit crunch are already forcing U.S. households to retrench. Government–fearing disaster if everybody retrenches at the same time–has stepped into the breach. Again, that makes sense in a crisis. But once the panic has passed, the U.S. will simply be steering toward another, even bigger, crisis unless it finds something to replace debt as its No. 1 export.

Of course, less money borrowed means less money to spend. “Can you imagine McCain or Obama going around saying he wants to reduce your standard of living?” asks Murphy. Probably not. But maybe they could just sell it as, say, diversifying our product offering.

Source: bloomberg.com