@
brokrken WADR I suggest that you consider restating your problem. As others have said, the issue is not whether an FA is needed because of the size of the portfolio, it is that a portfolio as complicated as yours is really difficult for an individual to manage. Personally, my eyes would glaze over at the prospect.
The solution is to radically simplify the portfolio. Instead of accepting that " ... we own roughly 60 individual stocks, preferreds, bonds, as well as 10 different index funds/etfs ...." you should begin by ditching all of the tiny positions in the 60 and the 10. I suggest that you find a tax- and investment-savvy CPA who can put together a picture of your positions, gains and losses, and help you develop a tax-efficient simplification plan. Then move forward on the simplification mission.
Re taxes, remember that you will probably end up paying them anyway, so at best you are delaying them, you are not dodging them. The exception is assets that you will give to charity; take this path to the extent you are so inclined. QCDs are a great tool if you are old enough.
As an example, DW and I also hold a very serious 7-figure brokerage portfolio and we are concentrated primarily in one fund (VTWAX) plus two smaller fund positions and in a couple of TIPS issues. That's it. 3 funds, two bonds. Easy to manage, highly diversified, and inflation resistant. Our portfolio asset list fits very comfortably on half a sheet of paper.
Your $5M portfolio value is really not a big deal in the context of individual investors' portfolios and, as others have said, dollar value is not a very useful criterion for making portfolio management decisions. Focus on simplicity, not dollars.