[throwaway2037]

Run away when you see some bullsh-t like this:

  "But we're actively rebalancing 2x per year and we do tax loss harvesting".

What if all of your funds are up for the period? There is no tax loss harvesting to be done(!), but you are still paying 100bps per year. To me: "tax loss harvesting" is akin to "tax write-offs" -- see Seinfeld TV episode. The money is still spent / lost. Taxes are an after thought...

Beat them all: Put all of your money is an ETF that tracks S&P 500 index. iShares IVV and Vanguard VOO are excellent. Expenses are less than 5bps per year! After 3/5/10 years, you are nearly guaranteed (statistically) to be ahead of the investment advisor when including expenses.

[mgkimsal]

I tend to agree. There's some value in having a real person to talk to, but it really depends on the person. PC people are generally just going to walking you through whatever the algorithm is implementing anyway, and... I just didn't see enough value in it. That said, I've lost plenty trying 'my own thing' on single stocks, but ... I pretty much knew it was a gamble. Majority of value is in a handful of basic ETFs and mutual funds with low expense ratios (< .10% overall, IIRC), so... there's not too much advantage in having someone else do the same thing for me (or really, for most people, imo).

[throwaway2037]

You wrote: <<There's some value in having a real person to talk to, but it really depends on the person.>>

I agree 100%. I think it is a good idea to pay for at least one hour of financial advice per year. Do not buy any products recommended if they receive a direct or indirect commission. An outsider who studies the financial situation of others for a living will usually have helpful advice, even if limited to: "This is good." or "Have you considered...?"