Trading vs Holding: Which Approach Makes More Sense for Stock Investors?

[Captain Corporate]

Many people may not give importance to holding but if you analyze the holders in the past then only holding and patiently holding it till the specific target has played a leading role behind the success of each holder.

I think the key is not to hold assets long-term with patience, but rather in the accuracy of selecting assets and your own knowledge regarding investment and planning. If you choose the wrong assets, no matter how long you hold them, their value could decrease. I think it's almost the same as someone who trades. The analysis used to choose assets and the timing to enter and exit trades is very important. Without a trading and investment plan, it will be difficult to make a profit.

That is true, if you end up buying some shitcoin from the meme world or whatever, it is quite possible that you can hodl it for 10 years and still end up losing money. However, if you do it with Bitcoin, for example, keep on buying just tiny bits every time you can, and every time you save some money, then I am sure that you are going to do a fine job without a doubt. I get that it is not a simple task, and yet we can still make it work one way or another.

This is why it is clear that we should be making sure it's going to do fine if we pick Bitcoin and keep it long term, and also keep on purchasing and putting it aside. Because in 10 years Bitcoin will be higher, that is not a question in my mind; I know it will be, so if we keep buying more, then the upside is great.

[FirmWars]

In my opinion, both approach makes sense but it is not suitable for every stock investor. Some people are not good at trading but are better with holding, trading is not something you can just wake up one morning and become perfect at it, it requires years or months of committed learning and practice before one can become good at it. Some people will still dedicate months of learning but might not become profitable because their psychology is not suitable for trading.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

I'm not saying trading is no longer profitable. Trading still has its place, especially for people with a tested strategy and proper risk management. But perhaps the real question is whether we have been overlooking the opportunities that come with holding, or do you believe active trading will still offer better opportunities over the long run?

Trading is an underrated form of making money irrespective of the market that you're trading in but before one embark on this journey, they first have to know that they're getting themselves into a tough zone and they have to be well skilled in trading before choosing it. If there's  no past experience then being an investor is the ideal choicee to pick because as soon as you decide it's trading that you want to do then you have chose to risk your money whenever you trade which many people don't succeed. The ratio of traders winning to investors is small so investing has a higher success ratio but anyone that can do it right with trading has a chance of making life changing wealth. For stocks, it's trading for me because of how it's difficult to know which stock will do well long term to hold but you can always trade them for profits whenever the chance presents itself.

[Miles2006]

Having the thought of holding as a stress free and easy strategy to earn compared to trade sounds great, I mean people fail to understand that trading requires a person to be more strategic with analyzing the market yet making profit is not certain.
Holding on the other hand is also not easy as sometimes holders panic concerning the market, for example not everyone has the patient to wait for the market and so far traders who get tired trading and end up holding also don’t get it right because they lack the patient to wait for longer period. Both trading and holding are two different strategy, trading is all about quick profit if only the trader is knowledgeable to earn, definitely it depends on our different choice.

[Zoomic]

In my opinion, both approach makes sense but it is not suitable for every stock investor. Some people are not good at trading but are better with holding, trading is not something you can just wake up one morning and become perfect at it, it requires years or months of committed learning and practice before one can become good at it. Some people will still dedicate months of learning but might not become profitable because their psychology is not suitable for trading.

This is why I fault people who judge the two approaches only by their potential returns. For trading, you'll need active involvement, regular analysis and proper risk management but for holding, you don't need all that, if you can exercise patience and be able to withstand market fluctuations without selling out of panic, you're good.

Both are tasking and have their separate challenges so you just have to know the approach that matches your knowledge, time and temperament instead of choosing simply because trading because you think it offers quicker profit.

[jossiel]

Nothing beats  holding just like the bitget dual investment, you either hold to get nothing or hold to get extra apr for holding

Oh boy, I see what you've done here.

I'm not going to hold to any exchange at all whether they offer huge interest to the deposits there.

Binance got hacked, and bitget as well. Can't we see the pattern here of what's being proven, people shouldn't trust exchanges with their money for holding.

you can't lose when you play your cards well.

People almost lose everything they have when these exchanges got hacked, if they don't have the reserve they won't pay for the refunds.

[Webetcoins]

No one can tell exactly which makes more sense and more profitable as both can be profitable when done the right way and with the right timing. But which one is safer, majority will still trust holding over trading.

Both make sense I mean because they are not those acts that are legit none-sense but it will also depend on the person that does them, as there are some that lacks in knowledge or experience that does them and they started losing money and they can say things like ''man this shit seems to not make any sense''. Same goes if which are profitable. In the context of being safe, it may seem that holding is more safe but not until we started holding random coins.

However, it also depends on the qualities and attitudes of the stock investor itself. If he is patient enough to hold like 5-10 years and witness how his money grows, and don't want to get stress with the market uncertainty, he can settle with just holding alone.

Even if we choose holding we are not immune with the market uncertainty but there are workarounds that we can do like just buy and forget. In trading it is also possible to automate or use bots but still they can't be like a long-term HODL'er. They will still need to go back not a long time to see the results of their auto trades and then set it up again for another session, unless if there is actually an option to choose a much longer term too.

[Olamidetechie]

Nothing beats  holding just like the bitget dual investment, you either hold to get nothing or hold to get extra apr for holding

Oh boy, I see what you've done here.

I'm not going to hold to any exchange at all whether they offer huge interest to the deposits there.

Binance got hacked, and bitget as well. Can't we see the pattern here of what's being proven, people shouldn't trust exchanges with their money for holding.

you can't lose when you play your cards well.

People almost lose everything they have when these exchanges got hacked, if they don't have the reserve they won't pay for the refunds.

Trust is expensive in this industry, but reliability and accountability matter too. We should appreciate initiatives like Bitget's and Binance's protection funds, which provide additional safeguards during security incidents. No exchange is risk-free, but how they prepare and respond matters.

Sharing information I find valuable shouldn't be discouraged. Ultimately, DYOR should guide everyone's decisions.

[BALIK]

Nothing beats  holding just like the bitget dual investment, you either hold to get nothing or hold to get extra apr for holding

Oh boy, I see what you've done here.

I'm not going to hold to any exchange at all whether they offer huge interest to the deposits there.

Binance got hacked, and bitget as well. Can't we see the pattern here of what's being proven, people shouldn't trust exchanges with their money for holding.

you can't lose when you play your cards well.

People almost lose everything they have when these exchanges got hacked, if they don't have the reserve they won't pay for the refunds.

I'm with you on not leaving funds on exchanges just to earn a little extra from programs like staking or lending.

However , let's be clear about one thing, virtually no users have lost funds or been left uncompensated after the incidents involving Bitget and Bybit. Customer assets stayed backed, and the exchanges stepped up and covered the losses.

I'm not saying CEXs  are completely  safe , but imo you can't lump all exchanges together or assume that every hack results in users losing all their funds .

[EarnOnVictor]

I don't think any controversy of which one is better exist between trading and investing, as investing will always be the safer choice, while trading will always be the riskier choice. Trading is so risky to the point that it consistently teaches people a bitter lesson, and it's irrespective of the class of asset you are talking about. But for investing, if you choose the right stocks/assets, you are highly covered, and even if it doesn't work entirely as planned, you might still have enough to fall back at. This is unlike trading that must have liquidated your money as earliest as possible.

[bangjoe]

There have been many claims stating that Successful Traders are minimal at all and even quite difficult to find 10% of Successful Traders, meaning that the profit opportunity is small compared to the risk if you want to trade then do it well and focus completely on studying it in both fundamental, technical, and narrative concerns in the economic world.

Holding is also not just any holding, if we buy it at the highest ATH is also a problem considering that returning to ATH in any asset is very difficult especially those that already have a large market capitalization, this must also have a strategy in investing long-term, this is my personal view, tapa see the bad side when someone has an affective, do not care about others while your way still gives a good profit in the financial world.

[FirmWars]

In my opinion, both approach makes sense but it is not suitable for every stock investor. Some people are not good at trading but are better with holding, trading is not something you can just wake up one morning and become perfect at it, it requires years or months of committed learning and practice before one can become good at it. Some people will still dedicate months of learning but might not become profitable because their psychology is not suitable for trading.

This is why I fault people who judge the two approaches only by their potential returns. For trading, you'll need active involvement, regular analysis and proper risk management but for holding, you don't need all that, if you can exercise patience and be able to withstand market fluctuations without selling out of panic, you're good.

Anybody that judge trading and holding based on potential returns could make mistakes. I agree with what you have said about trading but to add to what you said about holding, some people sell out of panic because they continue look at the price of the asset all the time as if their daily life depends on it.

If we deposit money in the bank, we don't go to the bank every day to check if the money is still in the safe of the bank and that's how every holder should treat their asset. The person should not be look at price always because that's what could make them to sell when the price is falling.

Both are tasking and have their separate challenges so you just have to know the approach that matches your knowledge, time and temperament instead of choosing simply because trading because you think it offers quicker profit.

Some people choose trading because of they assume it's a quickest way to make more profit in a short term without holding for years.

[CucakRowo]

To OP. Haven't we been over this a bunch of times already?
This was an open and shut case for a while now, and history has all but backed it up.
Holding usually beats trading when it comes to stocks as well as cryptocurrencies.

Perhaps a load of people don't want to admit it but trading is a game of chance.
That's what makes it riskier and why it gets compared to gambling.
So in the long run, for retail investors, buying and holding solid assets is usually wiser choice.

[marina torres]

If I were to be honest, for most people, holding is usually the better option.
Yes, indeed, trading could make you some good money, but it also comes with so much tension...

What has worked for me though is holding most of it, and only trading some small amounts that I’m comfortable losing.

I’d advice beginners to completely stay away from leverage trading. That’s where most people get burned. Just my 2 cents though…

[M47AK16]

No one can tell exactly which makes more sense and more profitable as both can be profitable when done the right way and with the right timing. But which one is safer, majority will still trust holding over trading.

Both make sense I mean because they are not those acts that are legit none-sense but it will also depend on the person that does them, as there are some that lacks in knowledge or experience that does them and they started losing money and they can say things like ''man this shit seems to not make any sense''. Same goes if which are profitable. In the context of being safe, it may seem that holding is more safe but not until we started holding random coins.

This is the real answer to it all. You are not going to see "what is the right way" for a blanket that covers the entire world. Some people do something great, and others do something bad, and it all depends on the person. We should not be really worried about what is right for every human on earth. Who you are and what kind of person you are changes everything, and you should pick what is right for you.

I have seen people fail at long-term investment; I mean, in that, all you do is buy something and then do nothing that's it, simple as that- and they couldn't even do the " do nothing part, and they had to sell because of fear and caused themselves to lose money.

[jossiel]

Trust is expensive in this industry, but reliability and accountability matter too. We should appreciate initiatives like Bitget's and Binance's protection funds, which provide additional safeguards during security incidents. No exchange is risk-free, but how they prepare and respond matters.

Sharing information I find valuable shouldn't be discouraged. Ultimately, DYOR should guide everyone's decisions.

Well, I appreciate them for doing the right things after the hack. But isn't it their responsibility for refunding users?

To each their own if they'll still trust exchanges even for the products they offer with interest rates.

I'm with you on not leaving funds on exchanges just to earn a little extra from programs like staking or lending.

However , let's be clear about one thing, virtually no users have lost funds or been left uncompensated after the incidents involving Bitget and Bybit. Customer assets stayed backed, and the exchanges stepped up and covered the losses.

I'm not saying CEXs  are completely  safe , but imo you can't lump all exchanges together or assume that every hack results in users losing all their funds .

We don't have to wait that something big happens again and the customers fund won't be refunded anymore.

The risk is there and everyone should always remember that any amount being deposited on an exchange can potentially gone.

What if no reserves at that time? the possibility is there but yes, we can applaud them for the right action they did.

[Olamidetechie]

Trust is expensive in this industry, but reliability and accountability matter too. We should appreciate initiatives like Bitget's and Binance's protection funds, which provide additional safeguards during security incidents. No exchange is risk-free, but how they prepare and respond matters.

Sharing information I find valuable shouldn't be discouraged. Ultimately, DYOR should guide everyone's decisions.

Well, I appreciate them for doing the right things after the hack. But isn't it their responsibility for refunding users?

To each their own if they'll still trust exchanges even for the products they offer with interest rates.

I'm with you on not leaving funds on exchanges just to earn a little extra from programs like staking or lending.

However , let's be clear about one thing, virtually no users have lost funds or been left uncompensated after the incidents involving Bitget and Bybit. Customer assets stayed backed, and the exchanges stepped up and covered the losses.

I'm not saying CEXs  are completely  safe , but imo you can't lump all exchanges together or assume that every hack results in users losing all their funds .

We don't have to wait that something big happens again and the customers fund won't be refunded anymore.

The risk is there and everyone should always remember that any amount being deposited on an exchange can potentially gone.

What if no reserves at that time? the possibility is there but yes, we can applaud them for the right action they did.

My response will be that an exchange with no reserves does not deserve to be called one; anything can happen at any time. And the truth is that what is happening to these exchanges has been happening to a lot of traditional banking for years, but overlooked, because there are expectations for digital banking; that is why they are feeling the heat.

[Ayers]

No one can tell exactly which makes more sense and more profitable as both can be profitable when done the right way and with the right timing. But which one is safer, majority will still trust holding over trading.

However, it also depends on the qualities and attitudes of the stock investor itself. If he is patient enough to hold like 5-10 years and witness how his money grows, and don't want to get stress with the market uncertainty, he can settle with just holding alone.

But if he has high risk tolerance, has proven skills and strategies and is willing to learn about the technical charts, and is indeed serious in trading like its his own job, he can stick with trading and be profitable in his chosen career in life.

i still think holding beats trading.

trading mean constantly trying to call market next move and time your entries and exits right. even with the right knowledge, strategy and experience. there is still no guarantee you will make a profit.

holding doesn't ask for any of that, and you're not trying to beat market every single day either. you just pick the right asset and stay patient enough, and your odds of making a profit are extremely high.

look at the  people who actually built serious wealth in this market . how many of them got rich off trading? afaik, most of them were holders . so it is fair to say holding is always better choice .

[BALIK]

We don't have to wait that something big happens again and the customers fund won't be refunded anymore.

The risk is there and everyone should always remember that any amount being deposited on an exchange can potentially gone.

What if no reserves at that time? the possibility is there but yes, we can applaud them for the right action they did.

I get your point, and like I said, I don't support keeping funds on CEXs. All I'm saying is we shouldn't lump every exchange together and jump to the conclusion that users will lose their money if something goes wrong. Each exchange has its own financial strength, risk management system, and way of handling a crisis.  People losing money to Mt.Gox and FTX doesn't mean users of Bybit, Bitget and Binance will end up the same way.

No one can guarantee that customers will  always get compensated in every situation , but that doesn't mean every incident ends with users losing money either . What Bitget and Bybit did is proof of that , and Binance is doing a great job now too.

https://x.com/binance/status/2116871932075516174

[Mpamaegbu]

If the settlement conditions are met, you may receive the settlement in the designated asset, potentially allowing you to acquire the stock exposure at your target price while earning a return according to the product's terms.

What of if after buying at the set price and price continues to tank? I know it's a hypothetical situation but we also have to create reality about it too. In cryptos, nothing is too certain to happen or not to happen. Anybody buying to hold will understand the risk of catching a falling knife while those trading will equally face the risk of depleting their capital. In both ways, the investor and the trader are subject to risk. That's what business is about – Profit and Loss.

If I were to suggest to you which between trading and hodling was better, I would tell you to go for that which you're better at, it doesn't matter whether you're into stocks or not. Don't follow what others are doing. Stick to what your ability can carry.