Single investment across multiple accounts… good, bad, indifferent?
The main restrictions you see with IRA's involve contributions, and not the actual investments themselves. I would be indifferent to having a single investment across multiple accounts. It might be a bit trickier to manage, especially if your strategy involves some specific asset allocation. Other than account management though, there's no big issue. One implication is the added fees if you are investing in something with a trading cost or commission, such as your stock purchase. If you pay low costs to trade (e.g. with a discount broker) and don't switch your investments often, then costs overall should remain reasonable .. but always be aware of your costs and seek to minimize them. The other issue you could run into is that each deferred account is going to be subject to its own RMD's (Required Minimum Distributions) when you've retired or hit 70.5 years of age.  Roth's don't generally care about RMD's at first, but are still subject to them once the person that created the Roth has passed.  Having fewer accounts will simplify the RMD stuff, but that's really only a factor in terms of being forced to sell 'something' in each account in order to make the RMD.   Other than that, it's just a matter of remembering to check each account if you come to a decision that it's time to liquidate holdings in a given security, lest you sell some but forget about the rest of it in another account.  (and perhaps as Chris pointed out, maybe having to pay fee's on each account for the sale)  Where this really can come into play is if you choose to load up each individual account with a given kind of investment, instead of spreading them across the accounts.  In that case RMD's could force you into selling something that is currently 'down' when you want to hold onto it, because that is your only choice in order to meet RMD's for account X.  So if you have multiple accounts, it's a good idea to not 'silo' particular vehicles into a single account, but spread similar ivestments across multiple accounts, so you always have the choice in each account of what to sell in order to meet an RMD. If you have fewer accounts, it's thus a lot easier to avoid the siloing effect
"For your first question, the general guidelines I've seen recommended are as follows: As to your second question, portfolio management is something you should familiarize yourself with.  If you trust it to other people, don't be surprised when they make ""mistakes"".  Remember, they get paid regardless of whether you make money.  Consider how much any degree of risk will affect you.  When starting out, your contributions make up most of the growth of your accounts; now is the time when you can most afford to take higher risk for higher payouts (still limiting your risk as much as possible, of course).  A 10% loss on a portfolio of $50k can be replaced with a good year's contributions.  Once your portfolio has grown to a much larger sum, it will be time to dial back the risk and focus on preserving your capital.   When choosing investments, always treat your porfolio as a whole - including non-retirement assets (other investment accounts, savings, even your house).  Don't put too many eggs from every account into the same basket, or you'll find that 30% of your porfolio is a single investment.  Also consider that some investments have different tax consequences, and you can leverage the properties of each account to offset that." In the related Should I have separate savings accounts for various savings goals? I discovered the open source Budgeter courtesy of Richard Donkin. Budgeter accomplishes my aim with a minimum of fuss, and I have found it to be quite usable despite the author's self deprecating comments to the contrary. The chart below was built in about 10 minutes, half the time it's taken to write this post. Budgeter doesn't feature handy abilities like CSV/OFX importing or scheduled transactions, which would mean a fair bit of work for bringing in historical data, and it's expressly not designed for accounting or bookkeeping. However for the focussed application of tracking savings across multiple bucket categories and accounts I think it well worth evaluating. "From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but   importantly, the advice is not simply ""buy index funds.""   There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation   across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular   rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or,   much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The   advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a   cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment   discipline which involves action over time, and an initial   choice among indexes. An index-fund-based   strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk   control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal.  That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and ""autopilotness"" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio." "Annuities are usually not good deals. Commissions to the salesman can be as high as 9% of the initial premium. They're not scams, just not the best deals for most circumstances. Basically, these things are a combination of an investment vehicle and multiple insurance policies, including permanent insurance. The 8.2% ""return"" is the total cash value of the account, which your heirs get if you die." The portfolio manager at Value Research Online does this very nicely. It tracks the underlying holdings of each fund, yielding correct calculations for funds that invest across the board. Take a look at the screenshot from my account:  If you have direct equity holdings (e.g., not through a mutual fund), that too gets integrated. Per stock details are also visible. As stated above, the IRA accounts themselves are individual.  But if you want to simulate a joint account, the following actions would help: Make sure to setup each account with the other spouse as the beneficiary so that each account goes to any surviving spouse should the unexpected happen. Some brokers (I know TDA does this) allow you to grant access to your account to another login, so that effectively one spouse could make the invest decisions for all your accounts.  This is better than simply sharing your username and password, which is against many T&Cs.  If you do this in both directions, each spouse has access to all accounts. I would suggest following your quote and having a read of the web page supplied, that buys then sells or sells short then buys (the same security on the same day) four or more times in five business days, ... So it is a two way transaction that counts as 'one'. I think the main question is whether the 1.5% quarterly fee is so bad that it warrants losing $60,000 immediately. Suppose they pull it out now, so they have 220000 - 60000 = $160,000.  They then invest this in a low-cost index fund, earning say 6% per year on average over 10 years.  The result: Alternatively, they leave the $220,000 in but tell the manager to invest it in the same index fund now.  They earn nothing because the manager's rapacious fees eat up all the gains (4*1.5% = 6%, not perfectly accurate due to compounding but close enough since 6% is only an estimate anyway).  The result: the same $220,000 they started with. This back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests they will actually come out ahead by biting the bullet and taking the money out.  However, I would definitely not advise them to take this major step just based on this simple calculation.  Many other factors are relevant (e.g., taxes when selling the existing investment to buy the index fund, how much of their savings was this $300,000).  Also, I don't know anything about how investment works in Hong Kong, so there could be some wrinkles that modify or invalidate this simple calculation.  But it is a starting point. Based on what you say here, I'd say they should take the earliest opportunity to tell everyone they know never to work with this investment manager.  I would go so far as to say they should look at his credentials (e.g., see what kind of financial advisor certification he has, if any), look up the ethical standards of their issuers, and consider filing a complaint.  This is not because of the performance of the investments -- losing 25% of your money due to market swings is a risk you have to accept -- but because of the exorbitant fees.  Unless Hong Kong has got some crazy kind of investment management market, charging 1.5% quarterly is highway robbery; charging a 25%+ for withdrawal is pillage.  Personally, I would seriously consider withdrawing the money even if the manager's investments had outperformed the market.