Thanks all for your comments.

Baltassar:
I do not understand why financial advisors should not do the same.

Yep, me too, which is why I have such a tough time considering it.

FC:
Could you pay said FP to keep you in a defensive posture for that 1%? (In my thinking, preservation of capital is more important than aggressive growth where you're at.)
* How risky / likely to fail is your business? (Influences first question).
* Have you looked into a single fund approach like a 50/50 or a retirement date 2030 fund at a brokerage? They are extremely low fee ( less than .2%), zero maintenance, set it and forget it.

I still lean toward growing assets rather than preservation. Probably I should strike a balance. Maybe something like you mentioned plus some more aggressive MI.
I have quite a bit of BRK and that pretty much sits there slowly appreciating.
On the business, I think it is pretty likely to fail, at least eventually; most do. All I can say is that we try to do a good job and stay on top of things but it is daunting.
Risks abound and as an engineer I'm more focused on those than the rewards.

Bacon:
With a special needs child and a business to run, you're skosh on time, and managing a trust of any sort takes a fair amount of it. It may be that offloading that task to a financial planner would be worth it. Mediocre performance isn't the same as bad performance, it's just not that good.

That would be my basic justification. Have to swallow the 1% thing, or find a fee only planner, but it's not clear that would be much cheaper.

RAMc:
You are fortunate to be in a financial situation capable of providing for your daughter.

True. A good chunk of that I owe to mechanical investing. It would have been a much bigger chunk if I had quit in 2018.


Mark