Should I sell my stocks to reduce my debt?
Simply put, the interest you're paying on your loans is eating into any gains you have in the stock market.  So, figure out how much you're paying in interest and consider the feasibility of paying off some of the loan.  Also figure in if you would be selling the stock at a profit or a loss.   Generally speaking, a home loan is typically long-term, with a high principal.  I believe the consensus is that it is typically not worth paying down extra on it.  A car loan, though, is much shorter term, with a lower principal.  It may be worth it to pay that down. I would certainly consider paying down the loan with 10% interest, even without running any numbers. What about doing this without selling stock?  The reason I suggest that is that you should not sell the stock unless you truly need the money or for some material reason(s) related to the company, the market, etc.  (Of course, one other reason would be to cut losses.) Unless I was looking to sell some stock anyway, I would try other ways to come up with the money to pay down the highest interest loan, at least.  If you are thinking of selling stock to pay down debt, definitely run the numbers. Put yourself in this position - if you had no debts and no investments, would you borrow money at those rates to invest in the stock market?  If no, then pay off the debts.  If yes, then keep them. I'd get rid of the debt with the stock money.  Stocks are at a high for the year.  Get out while the getting's good and get your financial house in order. Obviously, you should not buy stock when the option is to pay down your debt. However, your question is different. Should you sell to reduce debt. That really depends on your personal situation. If you were planning to sell the stock anyway, go ahead and reduce your loans. Check out how the stock is doing and what the perspectives are. If the stock looks like it's going down, sell... Do you have savings? Unless you do, I should advise to sell the stock at any rate. If you do have savings, are they earning you more (in percentage) than your loans? If they are, keep them... Depends from your general overall situation, but for what we know i would say: Definetely get rid of the high interest loan (10%) since average stocks return is not as high. Not sell shares for the car loan, the market is not so high (the s&p500 is just above the 200dd moing average). But if you have extra savings you should emduce this debt, since average savings rate is lower than 4% Keep the student loan for the moment. I'm surprised no one has picked up on this, but the student loan is an exception to the rule. It's inflation bound (for now), you only have to pay it back as a percentage of your salary if you earn over £15k (11% on any amount over that I believe), you don't have to pay it if you lose your job, and it doesn't affect your ability to get credit (except that your repayments will be taken into account).   My advice, which is slightly different to the above, is: if you have any shares that have lost more than 10% since you bought them and aren't currently recovering, sell them and pay off your debts with those. The rest is down to you - are they making more than 10% a year? If they are, don't sell them. If your dividends are covering your payments, carry on as you are. Otherwise it's down to you.
I assume I can/will need to file an 83(b) election, in order to avoid   tax repercussions? What exactly will this save me from? 83(b) election is for restricted stock grants, not for stock purchases. For restricted stocks, you generally pay income tax when they vest. For startups the price difference between the time of the grant and the time of the vesting can be astronomical and by choosing 83(b) you effectively pay income tax on the value of the grant instead of the value of the vest. Then, you only pay capital gains tax on the difference between the sale price and the grant value when you sell. In your case you're exercising an option, i.e.: you're buying a stock, so 83(b) is irrelevant. What you will pay though is the tax on the difference between the strike price and the stock FMV (unless the stocks you end up buying are restricted - which would have been the case if you exercised your options early, but I don't think is going to be the case now). What steps should I take to (in the eyes of the law) guarantee that   the board has received my execution notice? The secretary of the board   is a notorious procrastinator and can be very unorganized. You should read what the grant contract/company policy says on that. Ask the HR/manager. Usually, a certified letter with return receipt should be enough, but you should verify the format, the address, and the timeframe. "EBITDA is in my opinion not a useful measure for an investor looking to buy shares on the stock market. It is more useful for private businesses open to changing their structuring, or looking to sell significant parts of their business. One of the main benefits of reporting Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation & Amortization, is that it presents the company as it would look to a potential buyer. Consider that net income, as a metric, includes interest costs, taxes, and depreciation.  Interest costs are (to put it simply) a result of multiplying a business's debt by its interest rate. If you own a business, and personally guarantee the loan that the company has with the bank, your interest rates might be artificially low. If you have a policy of reaching high debt levels relative to your equity, in order to achieve high 'financial leveraging', your interest cost might be artificially high. Either way, if I bought your business, my debt structure could be completely different, and therefore your interest costs are not particularly relevant to me, a potential buyer. Instead, I should attempt to anticipate what my own interest costs would be, under my plans for your business. Taxes are a result of many factors, including the corporate structure of the business. If you run your business as a sole proprietorship (ie: no corporation), but I want to buy it under my corporation, then my tax rates could look nothing like yours. Or if we operated in multiple jurisdictions. etc. etc. Instead of using your taxes as an estimate for mine, I should anticipate my taxes based on my plans for your business. Depreciation / amortization is a measure that estimates how much of a business's ""fixed assets"" were ""used up"" during the year. ie: how much wear and tear occurred on your fleet of trucks? It is generally calculated as a % of your overall asset value. It is a (very loose) proxy for the cash costs which will ultimately be incurred to make repairs/replacements. D&A is also something which could significantly change if a business changes hands. If the value of your building is much higher now than when you bought it, I will have higher D&A costs than you [because I will be recording a % of total costs higher than yours], and therefore I should forecast my own D&A. Removing these costs from Net Income is not particularly relevant for a casual stock investor, because these costs will not change when you buy shares. Whatever IBM's interest cost is, reflects the debt structuring policy that the company currently has. Therefore when you buy a share in IBM, you should consider the impact that interest has on net income. Similarly for taxes and D&A - they reflect costs to the business that impact the company's ability to pay you a dividend, and therefore you should look at net income, which includes those costs. Why would a business with 'good net income' and 'good EBITDA' report EBITDA? Because EBITDA will always be higher than net income. Why say $10M net income, when you could say $50M EBITDA? The fact is, it's easy to report, and is generally well understood - so why not report it, when it also makes you look better, from a purely ""big number = good"" perspective? I'm not sure that reporting EBITDA implies any sort of manipulative reporting, but it would seem that Warren Buffet feels this is a risk." When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's  (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid "The other answers are good, I would just like to add certain points, taking this question together with the previous ones you have asked here. How can a person measure how much to spend on food, car, bills or rent   from his salary? Is there a formula to keep in check? Basically, it may well be that your best option would be to move to a smaller apartment or worse location to bring down rent, possibly forget about your own study in the worst case, sell the car and use public transportation, eat as many meals as possible at home, bring boxed lunch from home to work, if this applies, etc -- whatever makes a saving and sense to you. Regarding food, this is the point where it is usually possible to save a very significant amount, if you are prepared to make food at home. Unless you are already doing it, look around for articles such as ""living on 20 pounds a week"" or so, maybe they will give you ideas you can use (eg. How to eat on 10 pounds a week: shopping list and recipes) -- where you are shopping is crucial here as similar items can differ in price significantly between different chains. If the electricity bill is significant and you are at home a lot, you could try to bring it down by changing all bulbs in your home to LED ones, unless it has already been done. Yes, they can cost 2-3 more than eg. halogen ones, but they use 5-10x less electricity. Forget credit cards, if possible. Use debit cards so you know the money you spend does not get you into more debt. One question you asked here was about exchange rates -- if you work with different currencies a lot, there are several companies such as Revolut or N26, which offer accounts with debit cards that use near FX rates --- in my experiencee I could save around 10-15% on currency conversion EUR/GBP, using Revolut, compared to my local bank rate, for example. I find myself looking at my account every single day and get tensed   and sad because almost whenever the money (pay) comes in I freak out   that after everything there is nothing for us to enjoy or save. Well, yes. That is nearly the definition of too much debt. The point about going to the extremes of reducing expenses I outlined above, is that the more you can reduce your expenses while struggling with debt, the faster you'll get out of it. It might be hard to adapt, but it will be better, if you can calculate how long it will take to get you back on feet and know that, eg. ""in 6 months I can start to think of savings and carefully upgrading my lifestyle back"".  In turn, the smaller the reduction of expenses, the more prolonged the process -- you might be looking at 2-3 years of insecure/constantly frustrating/risking more debt lifestyle, instead of 6 months of severely reduced one. Alternatively, if things go too bleak, you might consider declaring bankrupcy -- although I am not sure how feasible it is in the UK." "If I understand correctly, your question boils down to this: ""I have $X to invest over 25 years, are guaranteed returns at a 0.6% lower rate better than what I expect to get from the stock market over the same period?"" Well, I believe the standard advice would go something like: Rational investors pay a premium to reduce risk/volatility. Or, put another way, guaranteed returns are more valuable than risky returns, all things equal. I don't know enough about student loans in America (I'm Australian). Here a student loan is very low interest and the minimum repayments scale with what you earn not what you owe, starting at $0 for a totally liveable wage - Here I'd say there's a case to just pay the minimum and invest extra money elsewhere. If yours is a private loan though, following the same rules as other loans, remember the organisation extending your loan has access to the stock market too! why would they extend a loan to you on worse terms than they would get by simply dumping money into an index fund? Is the organisation that extends student loans a charity or subsidised in some way? If not, someone has already built a business on the the analysis that returns at 6.4% (including defaults) beats the stock market at 7% in some way. What I would put back to you though, is that your question oversimplifies what is likely your more complex reality, and so answering your question directly doesn't help that much to make a persuasive case - It's too mathematical and sterile. Here are some things off the top of my head that your real personal circumstances might convince you to pay off your loan first, hit up Wall Street second:" Most important: Any gains you make from risking this sum of money over the next few years will not be life changing, but if you can't afford to lose it, then losses can be. Rhetorical question: How can you trust what I say you should do with your money? Answer: You can't. I'm happy to hear you're reading about the stock market, so please allow me to encourage you to keep learning.  And broaden your target to investing, or even further, to financial planning.  You may decide to pay down debt first.  You may decide to hold cash since you need it within a couple years. Least important: I suggest a Roth IRA at any online discount brokerage whose fees to open an account plus 1 transaction fee are the lowest to get you into a broad-market index ETF or mutual fund. "You're definitely not the first to pose this question.  During the peak of the housing crisis I noticed a decent amount of very high dollar properties get abandoned to their fates.  Individuals who can afford the mortgage on a 5 million dollar home don't necessarily need their credit to survive so it made more sense to let the asset (now a liability) go and take the hit on their credit for a few years. Unsecured debt, as mentioned is a little trickier because its backed by default by your personal estate.  If the creditor is active they will sue you and likely win unless there are issues with their paperwork.   Thing is though, you might escape some impacts of the debt to your credit rating and you might not ""need"" credit, but if you were to act as a wealthy person and not ""new money"" you would observe the significant value of using credit. credit allows you to leverage your wealth and expand the capacity of your money to import your overall wealth picture.  It may prove best to learn that and then make more wealth on your winnings than take the short sighted approach and welch on the debt." "Of course, but that's not relevant to my example. Let me clarify: say you hold a highly-appreciated $10M position in AAPL and you have good reason to believe the next iPhone is going to be a flop, causing the stock to decline 20%. You can sell now to avoid the (probable) decline, but by doing so you will be left with, let's say, $6.67M after paying $3.33M of state and federal LTCG taxes on the appreciation ($9M of the $10M, because you bought a long time ago).  However, by simply doing nothing and ""eating"" the 20% decline, you'll end up with $8M instead of $6.67M.  Many economists would criticize the tax in this example, as it has led to the investor rationally suffering a $2M loss, instead of reallocating all $10M of his/her capital to a more promising enterprise. Furthermore, if/when many investors act that way, they can create inefficiency in the equity markets (prices not declining by as much as they should to reflect a firm's reduced prospects)."