You’re not making any sense. You said to seek out a fiduciary not an advisor. Now you’re claiming that some time in the past, which would be distant past btw,

https://wealthadvisors.smartasset.com/fiduciary-costs-benefits-sem1/

That's the link you just linked in your previous comment. Your link.

Hmm, what's that first sentence there? Didn't bother to get past the title, did you? :(

Until relatively recently, the term “financial advisor” was used to describe various positions across the financial industry.

The Reg BI is from 2020.

So to you "relatively recently" actually means "the distant past"?

I wish you well in your studies, but you really are just sorely wrong about this, and now you're just having a tantrum and trying to assert knowing more, while actually linking evidence supporting how I'm in the right and how I understand that you need a financial advisor who has a fiduciary duty towards you — something which not all financial advisors had until five years ago. See in my language, you wouldn't even understand the words (and Google translate does not work well on Finnish.)

At no point has anyone made the argument that financial advisors don't need skill. But see they're financial ADVISORS, because they don't have the capital to invest.

You're explicitly saying that you couldn't make reliably make 100k roi on 100 million? Man, I hope you didn't pay for your schooling (here in the first world we have free education :P), because if you did, you really need to go and ask for your money back and spend it more wisely.

The money makes the money, as we live in a system of exploitation of labour. The megawealthy cumstains are also exploiting the work of the financial advisors, duh. The megawealthy cumstains still can make hundreds of thousands a year because CAPITAL MAKES CAPITAL.

Squirm all you want you're just utterly wrong and can't address the actual argument anymore so all you have is that childish and pretentious equivocating.