Any reason to keep IRAs separate?
I don't know about keeping different rollover IRAs separate. But I know that there is a reason to keep rollover IRAs separate from other traditional IRAs -- if you want to roll them back into a 401(k) in the future, some 401(k)s only allow funds that were rolled over from a 401(k) originally. Can't see why would you need to track the sources of the original funds. Can't think of a reason not to consolidate, if at all it will only make the management of your IRA more convenient, and may be even cheaper (if the fees depend on the account value...). Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed.  Also the desire to roll over  money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too --  far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better  keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new  contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to  another if one so desires.  Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests.
Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA?  They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other.  Which is relevant to your question because you said  the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k).   This is only true if you max out your contribution limits.  If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick.   Start with $10,000 to invest.  With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000.  With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it.  Let's assume a tax rate of 25%.  So invest $7500.   Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right).  So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000.   Now you withdraw them.  For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year.  It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year.  With the Roth, you have $120,000.  With the traditional, you have to pay tax.  Again, let's assume 25%.  So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional.  That is the same amount as the Roth!   So it would make sense to  If you can max out both, great.  You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it.  If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match.  That's free money.  Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k.   Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA.  Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax.  Alternate source.   Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement.  It may change other things.  For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes.  And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly.  You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are.  They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job).   If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution.  This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits.  Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth. You need to look at all your investment as a whole. The 401K, IRA, and any taxable account need to be a part of the diversification and re-balancing. The fact you have regular deposits into the 401K needs to also be a part of your strategy.  Regardless of how much specific investments have gone up this year, you need to first determine how you want to be invested in large cap stock, small cap stock, bond, international, emerging markets... Then you need to see where you are today compared to those investment percentages. You then move the money in the retirement accounts to get to your desired percentage. And set the 401K deposits to be consistent with your goals. Many times the deposits are allocated the same way the balances are, but that is more complex if one of the sectors you are investing in exists completely outside the 401K.  When you re-balance in the future you will be selling sectors that grew the most and buying those that grew the least compared to their planned percentages. If all the moves are within the 401K and IRA then capital gains are not a concern. Don't think of the different accounts as separate baskets, but think of them as a whole investment strategy. Many mutual fund companies (including Vanguard when I checked many years ago) require smaller minimum investments (often $1000) for IRA and 401k accounts.  Some also allow for smaller investments into their funds for  IRA accounts if you set up an automatic investment plan that contributes  a fixed amount of money each month or each quarter.  On the other hand,  many mutual fund companies charge an annual account maintenance fee ($10? $20? $25? more?) per fund for IRA investments unless the balance in the fund is above a certain amount (often $5K or $10K$).  This fee can be paid in cash or deducted from the IRA investment, and the former option is vastly better. So, diversification into multiple funds while starting out with an IRA is not that great an idea. It is far better to get diversification through investment in an S&P 500 Index fund (VFINX since you won't have access to @JoeTaxpayer's VIIIX) or a Total Market Index fund or, if you prefer, a Target Retirement Fund, and then branch out into other types of mutual funds as your investment grows through future contributions and dividends etc. To answer your question about fund minimums, the IRA account is separate from a taxable investment account, and the minimum rule applies to each separately. But, as noted above, there often are smaller minimums for tax-deferred accounts. "My understanding is that credit card companies are allowed to accept retirement income as part of the income that would qualify you for credit. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau issued a final rule amendment to Regulation Z (the regulations around Truth in Lending Act) in 2013 in response to some of the tightening of credit that resulted from the Credit CARD Act of 2009.  The final rule allows for credit issuers to ""consider income and assets to which such consumers have a reasonable expectation of access."" (Page 1)  On page 75, it outlines some examples: Other sources of income include interest or   dividends, retirement benefits, public assistance, alimony, child support, and separate   maintenance payments.... Current or reasonably expected income   also includes income that is being deposited regularly into an account on which the consumer is   an accountholder (e.g., an individual deposit account or joint account). Assets include, for   example, savings accounts and investments. Fannie Mae explicitly mentions IRA distributions in its Documentation Requirements on mortgage applications.  For them, they require that the income be ""expected to continue for at least three years after the date of the mortgage application."" Lenders can reject or lower your credit limit for just about any reason that they want, but it seems appropriate for you to include your retirement distributions in your income for credit applications." IRA is an account. You can open as many as you want. What's limited is the contributions: you cannot deposit to the IRA (all of them combined) more than what you've earned during the year, or $5500 (for 2013), the lowest. There are also limits on how much you can deduct, depending on your income and availability of other retirement programs at your work. You can open as many IRAs as you want in your child's name, but if your child had only earned $500 this year - that's how much you can put in these accounts. Your wife and you share the earned income limit, so if your wife is not working, you can still contribute to the IRA in her name, based on your own earnings (i.e.: if you earned more than $11000 - you can contribute the maximum $5500 for each of you). The limits are for all the IRA combined, doesn't matter how many accounts you have, and how many of them are Roth. From your first link: IRS.gov: IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year-Rule IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule Beginning in 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to   another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the   number of IRAs you own (Announcement  2014-15 and Announcement   2014-32). The limit will apply by aggregating all of an individual’s   IRAs, including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs as well as traditional and Roth   IRAs, effectively treating them as one IRA for purposes of the limit. They are limiting your ability to roll over money from an IRA to an IRA. You are looking to go from a 401K to an IRA. That is fine. The idea was that some people were taking all money from their IRA, using it for almost 60 days, then putting it back into an IRA. Thus getting a sort of short term loan. They could do this multiple times in a year. The direct trustee-to-trustee transfer are exempt from the once per year rule because the money is never in your possession.  Moving money from a 401K/403b/TSP plan from your former employer to an IRA or Roth IRA is fine, and isn't limited to once per year. I think it comes down to whether you are happy with the investment choices in the 401k.  If you are, there is no reason not to invest there.  Additionally, it doesn't have to be an either-or choice.  You can invest up to the maximum in both accounts. BTW, congratulations on thinking about retirement at your age.  I wish I had been in a position to do that. Your Simple IRA account is yours and yours alone, not your employer's. The only thing your employer can do with it is putting more money into it. The best option is to simple let it sit for the two years, and then either: