Beware: two-handed financial advisor
Nobody seems to have picked up on this. But the "financial advice fee-based advisor and the "asset management" commission-based advisor are the same guy.
This doesn't work. Believe me, I've tried. The interaction went like "I'm looking for a fee-based advisor". "Okay, give me $2000.”
Over the next several sessions, he gave me exactly the same advice he'd have given me for commission, recommended exactly the same house-brand financial products, just B-class shares instead of A-class shares. On a variable annuity I was to receive the commission back.
This is the difference between a fee-based advisor (defined by taking fees to serve you) and a fee-only advisor (defined by taking fees to serve all her clients). The two types are trained very differently, and have different ways of thinking.
The broker with one hand in the "commission" jar and one hand in the "fee" jar simply can't give you good advice. That is especially true if he is an employee of a firm where he must justify to his bosses why he put you into VOO with 0.1% expense ratio instead of their house-brand GYPUU index fund with ”saver" 0.9% ratio. He simply won‘t put you into VOO, he literally does not know the product, and ther'd be no earthly reason for him to know the product.
What he does know is a great many very inefficient products which are designed to putatively do one thing, but actually to snow-job and confuse the living daylights out of anyone who isn't an investment banker. The inefficiency/complexity (usually one runs with the other) is added to make consumers throw up their hands and say "I give up!", and relent financial control over to "people who can understand this stuff". Now, you know who doesn't buy any of that junk? University endowments.
I finally met a real fee-only advisor. She had a lovely office with a coffee bar with real baristas who could make anything, pastries, breads, soup, salads, sandwiches, (all "fee" but reasonable especially with their "you pick two" option), soft jazz playing, open WiFi and cute little tables for people to sit and talk.
I have the usual 401K, and I was annoyed at the, like, 8 financial products I get to choose from. Later, I joined the board of a nonprofit. This nonprofit had a $10 million endowment. This is a bloc of funds from which 4-7% a year is drawn to support operations perpetually. The endowment capital (whoops, almost said corpus) must be managed for maximum long term growth (damn the short-term volatility). There are legal consequences for board members who fail to manage this fund competently.
How can there be consequences for bad decisions if all investment is gambling? Turns out, it's not. There's a gold standard for how to invest an endowment. Just as an example of one that meets gold standard: 10% cash 10% muni bonds 10% REITs 15% international index funds and 55% domestic index funds. Yeah, super boring, and doesn't really surprise anyone who knows a bit about investing.
In fact it sounds a lot like the advice Suze Orman gives a 25-year-old on investing their IRA. Because the investment goals are the same.
Back to you
Suffice it to say, I now understand the limited choices in my 401K account. It had all the choices I needed to invest the endowment well, so why did my 401K need more? It doesn't.
Now, things get a little more complicated when retirement is within 20 years, because you need to start reducing your exposure to big market crashes. But still, you don't need magic hokum products only pro financial "advisers" (brokers) can recommend.
Containing costs is the surest financial investment. I'll recommend John Bogle's book "Common Sense on Mutual Funds" for more on that. Aside from that endowment, I have my own Donor Advised Fund. Despite a 0.6% per year custodial fee, my DAF outperforms the endowment, because I pick lower fee funds and am not paying for professional asset management.
Find that fee-only advisor and have a meeting with them. I recommend the Frontega chicken and tomato soup in a bread bowl.