When more professional help/platforms make sense?

[DrRoy]

I think it could make sense to hire on an hourly basis or fixed fee for a specific review (probably not annually), if you have specific questions, or at least a specific area that you feel needs to be looked into to see if it can be optimized. That could be a tax situation, ROTH conversions etc.

I also agree with others that I think you'll have a hard time finding someone that can add that value - they may be out there, but how do you sort the good from the bad from the indifferent?

As far as a threshold - sure there is. For a fee based on hours, the fee will be a smaller % of a larger portfolio. But going in, you can only guess at how much they can help you in absolute dollars, and compare that to their fees.

I don't believe you can count on them to help you select better investments.

-ERD50

+1

 

[RobbieB]

I use a full service broker with a %of annual fee. I don't want to learn about financial stuff and I don't want to worry about it either. I feel better knowing an entire firm of professionals and analysts are watching my bag.

I don't own any mutual funds, ETF's or REIT's, just 65 different common stocks that change ever so often according to what the analysts see best for my goals (stability and income)

So far, so good.

 

[nun]

The more you have the more important tax planning becomes. So for investing I'd just read up about tax advantaged investments like municipal bonds.

One area where I would spend some money is in estate planning and would probably employ a lawyer to do some planning if I was over the inheritance tax threshold.

 

[Fedup]

I already have a lawyer for estate planning. But I would trust them for investing, I mean nothing special about them. I rather so somewhere else.

 

[Scuba]

I use a full service broker with a %of annual fee. I don't want to learn about financial stuff and I don't want to worry about it either. I feel better knowing an entire firm of professionals and analysts are watching my bag.

I don't own any mutual funds, ETF's or REIT's, just 65 different common stocks that change ever so often according to what the analysts see best for my goals (stability and income)

So far, so good.

+1 I used to manage our portfolio myself and was happy with the performance. However I managed it for growth, not income. I interviewed several FA's and turned over the taxable portion to an FA in 2013, 3 years before retirement. Having the FA did 3 things for us:
1. Portfolio now generates enough income to cover most of our essential expenses and volatility has been reduced substantially
2. Built my confidence as to ability to RE. Helped me to have an expert validate it.
3. Keeps me from having to spend a lot of time on it. While I do have quite a bit of investing experience and financial knowledge, I choose to spend my time in other ways.

Our plan is to keep our FA through the first 3-5 years of retirement and see how things go. Given the sequencing of returns risk, if we make it through 3-5 years at our current standard of living, we can breathe much easier and may at that point take our portfolio management back and save on the fees.

Another consideration is whether you are a DIY person in general. We tend not to be - we hire experts to maintain our cars, fix things around the house, etc. We could probably do some of these things as well or better than the professionals for less cost, but our time has value and we prefer other activities.

 

[Danmar]

Another consideration is whether you are a DIY person in general. We tend not to be - we hire experts to maintain our cars, fix things around the house, etc. We could probably do some of these things as well or better than the professionals for less cost, but our time has value and we prefer other activities.

This is a good point. I am not a "handy" guy in the least. I hire people to look after most things and agree that my time is more valuable than the cost of hiring experts.

It is just that I enjoy self managing my portfolio and feel I can do a competent job at it given my education and experience. I cringe at the thought of paying someone 1% of my portfolio for doing something I enjoy and would be always second guessing. A 1% fee would be a lot of money, a lot more than hiring someone to cut the grass or do an oil change.

 

[target2019]

I agree with those who have high net worth, time all taken up, and use a pro. You're time is valuable, and the jobs you hold all need attention.

If the portfolio is simplified, a robot could do it for about one half the cost of pro. When you have time, self management can be done for half the cost of robot. So, we are all free to use our investments as we see fit.

 

[DawgMan]

Great stuff everyone, appreciate the feedback. Obviously there is no one size fits all so no wrong answers. From one perspective, I do think it is prudent for most people to get to some level of financial/investing competence regardless of whether they go DIY or choose a FA. I happen to be one of those people who enjoy understanding/investing in various products (i.e. stocks, bonds, real estate, businesses, loans) and comparing the risk/rewards of each, making a plan, and then implementing the strategy. I am also conscious of what my time is worth, especially as I get closer to RE, so can definitely appreciate how some would justify a FA from that perspective. So while I don't think I am quite ready to give up 1% to a FA, I enjoy keeping my radar up in search of a better mouse trap as I know there are smarter people out there than me. While I get that portfolio sizes should not necessarily change your over all strategy, I do think (at least for me), there is a natural pause point where you recognize the relationship between potential % swings in portfolio value in real $$ terms and depending where you are with all of your RE objectives, may/should get you consider all options on the table (i.e. new AA, consider a FA, confirm what others are doing at a certain asset level). Checks and balances I suppose is the best way to say it.

 

[Totoro]

The more you have the more important tax planning becomes. So for investing I'd just read up about tax advantaged investments like municipal bonds.

One area where I would spend some money is in estate planning and would probably employ a lawyer to do some planning if I was over the inheritance tax threshold.

+1 on both.

Taxes is a specialty area where above a certain amount it makes sense to hire a professional.

That and a decent cashflow analysis for those not too inclined to go DYI.

 

[kcowan]

This is a good point. I am not a "handy" guy in the least. I hire people to look after most things and agree that my time is more valuable than the cost of hiring experts.

I was the ultimate handy guy. Cars construction repairs. But now that I am retired, I outsource all that stuff except portfolio management which is not physically taxing.

Other people would prefer spending their time under a car and hate spreadsheets. For them, outsourcing portfolio management might make a lot of sense.

No one size fits all.

 

[Fedup]

We have one of each in our household so it works out well so far. The tinkerer and the " spreadsheeter " if there is such word.

 

[Nature Lover]

In addition to a convenience, a good FA can be particularly helpful for a person who has trouble controlling their urge to "respond" to every emotional change regarding their investments. Managing risk (and risky behavior) is an area they can add meaningful value, if you're not a disciplined investor. And a good firm can assist in addressing concerns beyond investment selection and management. There are boutique shops that charge much less than 1-2% AUM fees. Whether for you or your family members, it can be a savior.

PS. If you do use a FA, don't be shy about negotiating rates, pushing them to manage your investments to keep mutual fund fees low, and asking questions about insurance, taxes, real estate, financial planning and more. If they're experienced competent professionals (and there are such in the field) they will know who in their firm will be able to help, and pull them into the conversation. I'm not a FP, but I had family members who benefitted greatly from having a FA....with fees at ~.4%. They did use index funds where appropriate, and yes, also other funds; but legitimately tried to keep costs down. Overall, engaging an independent professional voice saved them from themselves, and over the years helped ensure their money was invested consistent with their risk tolerance in mind.

 

[savory]

So, it would be great to get your feedback based upon my actual FA returns. Am I getting value for my money? (Or do do your feel, he is getting value for my money

86% of the money is in an IRA. 14% is a regular account. The 14% is managed to lower taxes. The goal is 60/40 but the FA has the freedom to take it above or below based upon their market assessment.

If I need to provide this in a different way, I will try to do that. Hopefully, this will be in a useful form for your feedback All dividends were reinvested and no additional cash added in the time frame provided.

Acct 1 - 86% of portfolio: 2010 - 2016 grew 1.3 times.

Acct 2 - 14% of portfolio 2011 - 2016 grew 0.48 times

To be clear, $100,000 in Acct 1 invested in 2010 would now be worth $230,000. This is all after commissions.

 

[NoiseBoy]

I have a co-worker who has a very low risk tolerance and was investing only in the stable value fund in their 401(k). But, when she was kicked out of the DB pension plan by virtue of missing the age cutoff by 4 months, she was forced to the conclusion that she would have to take on more portfolio risk if she wanted to retire. Since she didn't want to pick her own investments and is worried about her ability to withstand market drops, she decided to hire a fee based FA. So far, so good I think.

As for me, I trust myself to handle my own investments, but taxes bore me, so hiring a pro to help minimize my tax exposure and also for future estate planning may make sense for me. But neither of those are immediate concerns of mine.

 

[ERD50]

...

Acct 1 - 86% of portfolio: 2010 - 2016 grew 1.3 times.

Acct 2 - 14% of portfolio 2011 - 2016 grew 0.48 times

To be clear, $100,000 in Acct 1 invested in 2010 would now be worth $230,000. This is all after commissions.

It's not clear. $100,000 times 1.3 = $130,000.

$230,000 would be growth of 2.3 times.

130% growth would be $230,000.

So what would $100,000 in acct 2 be worth? I'd guess $48,000, but I'm not sure from your other numbers. Or would it be $148, 000?

-ERD50

 

[Nature Lover]

So, I have asked myself the same question as the OP but elected not to ask it here as the most active posters, who I have great respect for their opinion, just don't see the financial opportunity with FAs. I get how they reached that conclusion and am not debating it. However, I like the support and not interested in managing the portfolio. A low price mutual fund FA, like Schwab for example may ultimately meet my needs.

My one FA has done a good job by performing at or above the market. Another one, I am using for comparison, is not doing as well and this maybe the year I move on and likely to a robo FA.

About a year ago, I decided to experiment with a robo FA. They had a monthly promotion where their fee is all but free. (Obviously the funds have a fee). I will be doing an analysis soon. I do know their approach to tax harvesting has been a good and a learning experience for me.

I also manage some of my own investments.

So, like the OP, I am still finding my way. The good news is I am not compromising my retirement and my net worth continues to be above my projections.

So, it would be great to get your feedback based upon my actual FA returns. Am I getting value for my money? (Or do do your feel, he is getting value for my money

86% of the money is in an IRA. 14% is a regular account. The 14% is managed to lower taxes. The goal is 60/40 but the FA has the freedom to take it above or below based upon their market assessment.

If I need to provide this in a different way, I will try to do that. Hopefully, this will be in a useful form for your feedback All dividends were reinvested and no additional cash added in the time frame provided.

Acct 1 - 86% of portfolio: 2010 - 2016 grew 1.3 times.

Acct 2 - 14% of portfolio 2011 - 2016 grew 0.48 times

To be clear, $100,000 in Acct 1 invested in 2010 would now be worth $230,000. This is all after commissions.

Davef,

Would be happy to share my thoughts (and many others may chime in, too); however I think some additional information would be helpful in answering the question of value. The returns information is helpful. Additional info would help a little more (since net returns aren't the only relevant measure):

• You used the words "after commissions". Are the FA accounts with brokers who are compensated by commissions, or with investment advisors charging a fee for assets under management? I just want to confirm without making assumptions. It would also help to know how much they're charging you in commissions/fees (a % or equivalency would be fine, just like the $100k equivalency in your question), and whether they used low cost index funds for holdings where such funds made sense or invested exclusively with in house or active (typically higher fee) funds.
  
  
• Also, have you reviewed the investments held or discussed with the advisor(s) whether they actually held a 60/40 ptf for you, or invested the funds more aggressively, pursuant to your agreement to allow that? (A corollary question would be: If they departed from the original 60/40 ptf, did they communicate with you about the change and explain to your satisfaction and comfort why the change was appropriate?)
  
  
• On that note, how have they performed more generally on communication? Have they communicated periodically on the market, performance, changes in fund selections? Have they invited you to have an annual (at least) sit down to review your accounts and discuss your needs/desires/concerns? If you did meet, did you agree/instruct them to make any adjustments to your agreed upon ptf/allocations (and did they follow through as agreed/instructed)?
  
  
• Lastly, I wonder if you have discussed any financial matters/planning matters with them beyond their investment advisory services. If so, did they charge you for that (some do, some don't...and it would usually be hourly, if at all).
  

You'll notice that these questions focus mostly on whether they adequately discussed your needs/preferences (and risk tolerance) before and during their service, whether they did what they said they'd do responsibly and professionally, whether they communicated with you about what they did and how they handled any changes in your needs/desires/concerns, and of course, what they charged you for their services. No one knows what the market will do, but if they're responsible professionals, and manage your investments in a manner consistent with the plans you discussed, your net returns (with hindsight) should be something you can use to help confirm whether or not their services were of meaningful value to you.

BTW, you've indicated that you manage some of your investments yourself, and that you might do just fine with some index/schwab funds or maybe even robo services. If the answer to any of the above questions lead you ultimately to the decision that you didn't get meaningful, or enough, value from using the FA, then there are plenty of simpler approaches you can follow to manage your funds yourself (Bogleheads, Portfolio Charts, and Vanguard all are good starting points).

NL

 

[savory]

It's not clear. $100,000 times 1.3 = $130,000.

$230,000 would be growth of 2.3 times.

130% growth would be $230,000.

So what would $100,000 in acct 2 be worth? I'd guess $48,000, but I'm not sure from your other numbers. Or would it be $148, 000?

-ERD50

In terms of returns $100 grew to $230 from 2010 to December 2016 for 86% of the investment.

For the other 14%, $100 grew to $148 from 2011 to December 2016

Also, see my response from another member. Thanks!

 

[savory]

Davef,

Would be happy to share my thoughts (and many others may chime in, too); however I think some additional information would be helpful in answering the question of value. The returns information is helpful. Additional info would help a little more (since net returns aren't the only relevant measure):

• You used the words "after commissions". Are the FA accounts with brokers who are compensated by commissions, or with investment advisors charging a fee for assets under management? I just want to confirm without making assumptions. It would also help to know how much they're charging you in commissions/fees (a % or equivalency would be fine, just like the $100k equivalency in your question), and whether they used low cost index funds for holdings where such funds made sense or invested exclusively with in house or active (typically higher fee) funds.
  
  1% Fee - Right now, 78% individual stocks, 5% Intl stock, 12% bonds, 4% cash. Major sectors financial, technology, consumer cyclical, & consumer defense.
  
  
• Also, have you reviewed the investments held or discussed with the advisor(s) whether they actually held a 60/40 ptf for you, or invested the funds more aggressively, pursuant to your agreement to allow that? (A corollary question would be: If they departed from the original 60/40 ptf, did they communicate with you about the change and explain to your satisfaction and comfort why the change was appropriate?)
  
  I am very happy with the communication and their strategic approach. Briefly, they have a formula for when to buy and sell. I will not be able to really explain it but it is based on segment and stock performance that pass a certain threshold. They are willing to miss the beginning of an upward trend to reduce risk and they sell under a similar market change on the downside. One of the things that attracted me was the performance during the down market. They were able to protect their clients investments vs. the market. Having said that they missed the front end of the upside. However, in speaking to them and fairly knowledgeable clients, they followed their formula on the down and up.
  
  
• On that note, how have they performed more generally on communication? Have they communicated periodically on the market, performance, changes in fund selections? Have they invited you to have an annual (at least) sit down to review your accounts and discuss your needs/desires/concerns? If you did meet, did you agree/instruct them to make any adjustments to your agreed upon ptf/allocations (and did they follow through as agreed/instructed)?
  
  The answer is yes to all of this. They publish a monthly newsletter and send an account report. They hold the money at a broker. It is a small family business and I know the principal and many clients.
  
  
• Lastly, I wonder if you have discussed any financial matters/planning matters with them beyond their investment advisory services. If so, did they charge you for that (some do, some don't...and it would usually be hourly, if at all).
  
  They helped with my first retirement planning and I still use it but I rely more on Firecalc. They have helped with other matters and make suggestions from time to time without asking.
  

You'll notice that these questions focus mostly on whether they adequately discussed your needs/preferences (and risk tolerance) before and during their service, whether they did what they said they'd do responsibly and professionally, whether they communicated with you about what they did and how they handled any changes in your needs/desires/concerns, and of course, what they charged you for their services. No one knows what the market will do, but if they're responsible professionals, and manage your investments in a manner consistent with the plans you discussed, your net returns (with hindsight) should be something you can use to help confirm whether or not their services were of meaningful value to you.

BTW, you've indicated that you manage some of your investments yourself, and that you might do just fine with some index/schwab funds or maybe even robo services. If the answer to any of the above questions lead you ultimately to the decision that you didn't get meaningful, or enough, value from using the FA, then there are plenty of simpler approaches you can follow to manage your funds yourself (Bogleheads, Portfolio Charts, and Vanguard all are good starting points).

NL

In terms of returns $100 grew to $230 from 2010 to December 2016 for 86% of the investment.

For the other 14%, $100 grew to $148 from 2011 to December 2016

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Please notice my responses are shown in the 'quote' section.

 

[redduck]

...Nobody else cares about your money as much as you do.

I used to think that was true. However, with each passing year, I've noticed that my heirs care even more about my money than I do.

 

[RobbieB]

I do care about my dough, that's why I pay some pros to watch it.

 

[Nature Lover]

In terms of returns $100 grew to $230 from 2010 to December 2016 for 86% of the investment.

For the other 14%, $100 grew to $148 from 2011 to December 2016

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Please notice my responses are shown in the 'quote' section.

"It would also help to know how much they're charging you in commissions/fees (a % or equivalency would be fine, just like the $100k equivalency in your question), and whether they used low cost index funds for holdings where such funds made sense or invested exclusively with in house or active (typically higher fee) funds.

1% Fee - Right now, 78% individual stocks, 5% Intl stock, 12% bonds, 4% cash. Major sectors financial, technology, consumer cyclical, & consumer defense."

"Also, have you reviewed the investments held or discussed with the advisor(s) whether they actually held a 60/40 ptf for you, or invested the funds more aggressively, pursuant to your agreement to allow that? (A corollary question would be: If they departed from the original 60/40 ptf, did they communicate with you about the change and explain to your satisfaction and comfort why the change was appropriate?)

I am very happy with the communication and their strategic approach. Briefly, they have a formula for when to buy and sell. I will not be able to really explain it but it is based on segment and stock performance that pass a certain threshold. They are willing to miss the beginning of an upward trend to reduce risk and they sell under a similar market change on the downside. One of the things that attracted me was the performance during the down market. They were able to protect their clients investments vs. the market. Having said that they missed the front end of the upside. However, in speaking to them and fairly knowledgeable clients, they followed their formula on the down and up."

"On that note, how have they performed more generally on communication? Have they communicated periodically on the market, performance, changes in fund selections? Have they invited you to have an annual (at least) sit down to review your accounts and discuss your needs/desires/concerns? If you did meet, did you agree/instruct them to make any adjustments to your agreed upon ptf/allocations (and did they follow through as agreed/instructed)?

The answer is yes to all of this. They publish a monthly newsletter and send an account report. They hold the money at a broker. It is a small family business and I know the principal and many clients."

"Lastly, I wonder if you have discussed any financial matters/planning matters with them beyond their investment advisory services. If so, did they charge you for that (some do, some don't...and it would usually be hourly, if at all).

They helped with my first retirement planning and I still use it but I rely more on Firecalc. They have helped with other matters and make suggestions from time to time without asking."


Hi davef,

Just reading through your responses a few things appear relatively clear. First, it appears that you trust this advisory firm, are satisfied that they are doing what they promise, but aren't clear exactly on how they're investing on your behalf (meaning that you likely wouldn't feel comfortable replicating their trading methods on your own).

That being said, it sounds like the choice you really need to make is whether you want an advisor to invest in individual stocks plus a few funds on your behalf using their in-house strategies, or if you'd be more comfortable in mutual funds that you could choose and manage yourself without complication.

(Indexers prefer passive investing and will point out that rarely do actively managed funds consistently beat the market as a whole...They'd most likely advise against using your advisor, because the advisor appears to be more actively managing the investments. Of course, some investors prefer to have someone else make the decisions and are OK with turning over the strategic decisions to someone else.)

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that they appear to have you over 80% in stocks in total, that's quite a bit higher than the 60% goal, so your actual risk level might be higher than you expect. With market performance in the last few months it might mean they're very smart....but it also means you have a greater risk to the downside if the markets correct. You did give them discretion....that's just a pretty big difference.

As far as costs and returns, I did a quick lookup on Vanguard and for the 5 years in question, it looks like their VG 500 fund was up a cumulative ~91%, and their Total Bond fund ~11.5%. (Others can correct me if I read the VG stats incorrectly). That means a 60/40 ptf holding in these funds would have had returns of ~60% ($100 becomes $160) for the 5 year period. When compared to your returns of ~118% overall ($86 becomes $198, $14 becomes ~$20, total $100 becomes $218), they did better than a simpler 2 fund VG index approach (assuming that on average they really had you in a near 60/40 style ptf overall for comparability). Their costs were higher than a passive index portfolio, of course, but overall they did well on a total net return basis despite the expense drag.

Regarding costs, know that many advisors will invest in a broader range of mutual funds, rather than something simple or creating their own portfolio of individual stocks. This can result in combined fees of more than 1% assets under management, sometimes substantially more. So, the simple 1% you were charged, while higher than a DIY low cost index fund strategy (even if using more than 2 funds), compares reasonably or better than a portfolio where the advisor charges near 1% and you have to pay fund fees on top of that.

You mentioned trying a second advisor I think, and a robo; which suggests to me you were worried about the advisor in some respect; but your responses above sound more like your satisfied with their performance. That's something to reflect upon.

Only you can draw the final conclusions/answer your question on the value of their services. Sorry I ran on a bit. I hope the discussion was helpful.

 

[savory]

"It would also help to know how much they're charging you in commissions/fees (a % or equivalency would be fine, just like the $100k equivalency in your question), and whether they used low cost index funds for holdings where such funds made sense or invested exclusively with in house or active (typically higher fee) funds.

1% Fee - Right now, 78% individual stocks, 5% Intl stock, 12% bonds, 4% cash. Major sectors financial, technology, consumer cyclical, & consumer defense."

"Also, have you reviewed the investments held or discussed with the advisor(s) whether they actually held a 60/40 ptf for you, or invested the funds more aggressively, pursuant to your agreement to allow that? (A corollary question would be: If they departed from the original 60/40 ptf, did they communicate with you about the change and explain to your satisfaction and comfort why the change was appropriate?)

I am very happy with the communication and their strategic approach. Briefly, they have a formula for when to buy and sell. I will not be able to really explain it but it is based on segment and stock performance that pass a certain threshold. They are willing to miss the beginning of an upward trend to reduce risk and they sell under a similar market change on the downside. One of the things that attracted me was the performance during the down market. They were able to protect their clients investments vs. the market. Having said that they missed the front end of the upside. However, in speaking to them and fairly knowledgeable clients, they followed their formula on the down and up."

"On that note, how have they performed more generally on communication? Have they communicated periodically on the market, performance, changes in fund selections? Have they invited you to have an annual (at least) sit down to review your accounts and discuss your needs/desires/concerns? If you did meet, did you agree/instruct them to make any adjustments to your agreed upon ptf/allocations (and did they follow through as agreed/instructed)?

The answer is yes to all of this. They publish a monthly newsletter and send an account report. They hold the money at a broker. It is a small family business and I know the principal and many clients."

"Lastly, I wonder if you have discussed any financial matters/planning matters with them beyond their investment advisory services. If so, did they charge you for that (some do, some don't...and it would usually be hourly, if at all).

They helped with my first retirement planning and I still use it but I rely more on Firecalc. They have helped with other matters and make suggestions from time to time without asking."


Hi davef,

Just reading through your responses a few things appear relatively clear. First, it appears that you trust this advisory firm, are satisfied that they are doing what they promise, but aren't clear exactly on how they're investing on your behalf (meaning that you likely wouldn't feel comfortable replicating their trading methods on your own).

That being said, it sounds like the choice you really need to make is whether you want an advisor to invest in individual stocks plus a few funds on your behalf using their in-house strategies, or if you'd be more comfortable in mutual funds that you could choose and manage yourself without complication.

(Indexers prefer passive investing and will point out that rarely do actively managed funds consistently beat the market as a whole...They'd most likely advise against using your advisor, because the advisor appears to be more actively managing the investments. Of course, some investors prefer to have someone else make the decisions and are OK with turning over the strategic decisions to someone else.)

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that they appear to have you over 80% in stocks in total, that's quite a bit higher than the 60% goal, so your actual risk level might be higher than you expect. With market performance in the last few months it might mean they're very smart....but it also means you have a greater risk to the downside if the markets correct. You did give them discretion....that's just a pretty big difference.

As far as costs and returns, I did a quick lookup on Vanguard and for the 5 years in question, it looks like their VG 500 fund was up a cumulative ~91%, and their Total Bond fund ~11.5%. (Others can correct me if I read the VG stats incorrectly). That means a 60/40 ptf holding in these funds would have had returns of ~60% ($100 becomes $160) for the 5 year period. When compared to your returns of ~118% overall ($86 becomes $198, $14 becomes ~$20, total $100 becomes $218), they did better than a simpler 2 fund VG index approach (assuming that on average they really had you in a near 60/40 style ptf overall for comparability). Their costs were higher than a passive index portfolio, of course, but overall they did well on a total net return basis despite the expense drag.

Regarding costs, know that many advisors will invest in a broader range of mutual funds, rather than something simple or creating their own portfolio of individual stocks. This can result in combined fees of more than 1% assets under management, sometimes substantially more. So, the simple 1% you were charged, while higher than a DIY low cost index fund strategy (even if using more than 2 funds), compares reasonably or better than a portfolio where the advisor charges near 1% and you have to pay fund fees on top of that.

You mentioned trying a second advisor I think, and a robo; which suggests to me you were worried about the advisor in some respect; but your responses above sound more like your satisfied with their performance. That's something to reflect upon.

Only you can draw the final conclusions/answer your question on the value of their services. Sorry I ran on a bit. I hope the discussion was helpful.

Thanks Nature Lover appreciate your response.