They must be the good guys, right?

Using the compound interest calculator at investor.gov, a $10,000 initial investment compounded at 7% annually will be worth $149,744 after 40 years; at 6% (representing a fee of 1%), it's worth only $102,857. The 1% fee ate up 32% of the return.

I'm a tax attorney, so I see a lot of other people's finances.

The ones I see that work with a financial advisor are, without exception, paying at least 1% of AUM in fees to be in higher-costs funds that underperform the index funds in the long run. To make matters worse, the financial advisors choose tax-inefficient funds and take their fees in the most tax-inefficient way possible. I have also found that many do not understand the nuances of self employed retirement plans or the backdoor Roth.

In my view, there are a few problems with the industry. First, most financial firms hire salespeople and then teach them finance, instead of hiring people who already know finance. I know a LOT of morons working in Edward Jones shops and the like, who are charming but ultimately don't understand the back end of the products they sell. My ex worked for two of the large regional banks in my area, and she had a degree in communications.

She knew (and knows) nothing about finance, but instead was hired because her family is wealthy and gets referral business from old neighbors and classmates. She couldn't even pass the Series 7, but the banks thought she could work in trust management. I talk to clients and financial advisors all the time who don't understand the difference in tax efficiency between mutual funds and ETFs, or the mechanics and reasons of a 1031 exchange, or what the tax incentives actually look like in various types of accounts, or the merits of a solo 401k vs a SEP IRA.

When you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Second, the incentives are rarely aligned in the middle of the market or below. Helping a 24 year old set up and fund their Roth IRA is probably not worth your time on the front end unless you're getting an outsized commissions, which ultimately cost the client more money than needed for someone with a small account.

A recent series of encounters with a "financial planner" would be funny if it wasn't so predictable. I have a reasonably healthy amount of money in the care of the investment department of a regional bank. The new "financial planner" at the bank apparently noticed this money, and started to send me emails pitching me on---wait for it--single-premium life insurance. His idea was that I could use the money to "build a family legacy that will last for generations" Barf.

It would be funny if it wasn't so predictable. I had to meet with him about changing some investments within my SEP/IRA. In the meantime, he was helping me set up a Donor Advised Fund. This is a fairly labor-intensive process, with no immediate benefit to him or his bank, and he was taking care of every step of it for me. If the process of setting up the Donor Advised Fund had involved him wiping my backside, he would have done it with smile, while asking me whether I preferred Charmin or AngelSoft.

Two days ago, we met at my office. After we did the necessary stuff for my SEP/IRA, he turned to the life insurance pitch. I cut him off and said, "If this is about life insurance, I'm not doing it." At that point, he left my office. Yesterday morning, bright and early, I got a email from him giving the contact information of various people who I needed to talk with to finish setting up the Donor Advised Trust, along with his sincere best wishes that I could successfully complete the task on my own.

As long as he saw me as a live prospect for high-commission financial products with high internal costs, he was willing to wait on me hand and foot. Once the prospect of selling me life insurance was over, I was "dead to him." Again, it would be funny if it weren't so predictable. Something to keep in mind concerning the priorities of "financial planners." (Hint: It 's not you.)