Suppose you have a portfolio of $1m. You have a successful track record in both short-term and long-term trading. Which is more profitable? What is your preference now?
Great analogyShort-term trading is more profitable; you want to churn that machine in much more revolutions.
Kind of like a Formula 1 race car...they have like a 19K rpm redline, versus a normal street sports car that only averages 6K rpm.
F1 race cars are the fastest around a track.
Short-term trading is more profitable; you want to churn that machine in much more revolutions.
Kind of like a Formula 1 race car...they have like a 19K rpm redline, versus a normal street sports car that only averages 6K rpm.
F1 race cars are the fastest around a track.

For you and mostly everyone else without a methodology, long term trading is by far the most profitable.
With a sound methodology, short-term trading is of course more profitable. Just do the math.
The thing is that with investing you have a considerably higher margin-of-error in your operations (you will do very few), but you still need a methodology and a plan. It doesn't have to be very advanced though (compared to a short-term trading operation), BUT you need to be able to follow it.
I have two friends at the moment who both started investing recently.
Guy A - Has taken the time and effort to craft a methodology and SEEMS to be following it so far. For instance, he bought more stocks on the recent fall and didn't panic. Far from it. His methodology is seemingly simple: he invests in companies that historically have increasing (and consistent) dividends.
Guy B - Is supposedly going to be an investor, but does not have a methodology. Goes in and out of stocks and actually managed to sell his entire portfolio with a loss in panic last week. I think he coined the bottom pretty well.