You can have an advisor who charges you fees to manage your portfolio, which includes stocks and other vehicles. There may or may not be fees in the associated transactions that they do, but in aggregate, he is charging you management fees.
You can buy funds that essentially do the same thing and they charge you management fees. Do you see how they are related?
The problem is when you have someone (anyone) who is charging you a fee that you don't get commensurate value for.
I see what you're doing here. Talk some circles until you reach a point where you can say "see, you don't know what you're talking about - I told you financial planners were vital!"
Frankly I'm a tad disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that.
So yes I understand there are fees associated with all funds. What idiot wouldn't?
Most of my funds have an expense ratio of about .2%. I invest primarily in passive index funds as opposed to the more expensive actively managed funds. Precisely because I want to avoid paying a lot of fees.
What you probably do is pay a financial planner 1% to go out and find you some supposedly hot actively managed fund that costs you an additional 1.5-2%.
You think this approach will get you greater returns but fact is it is exceedingly difficult for anyone -- expert or otherwise -- to beat the market over time. Yet alone beat it to such an extent that you make up for those multiple layers of compound fees over time.
But hey, you like your approach and it works for you. That's your prerogative and there's really no need to engage in petty target-shifting tactics in an attempt to justify your belief