Is a robo-adviser worth the risk?
If you are looking for an advisor to just build a portfolio and then manage it, a robo-advisor can be beneficial (especially if the alternative is doing it your self, assuming that you are not well versed in the markets). The primary risk with one is that it does not build a portfolio that accurately represents your needs and risk tolerance. Some firms base the number of questions they ask you on sign up based not on what is needed to get a good profile, but on how many before people decide that it is too much hassle and bail. That usually results in poorer profiles. Also a live advisor may be better at really getting at your risk tolerance. Many of day our risk tolerance is one thing but in reality we are not so risk tolerant.  Once the profile is built. The algorithms maintain your portfolio on a day by day basis. If rebalancing opportunities occur they take advantage of it.  The primary benefit of a robo-advisor is lower fees or smaller minimum account balances. The downside is the lack of human interaction and financial advise outside of putting together a portfolio. They've been around long enough now for there to be past performance figures you can google for. I think you'll find the results aren't very encouraging. I personally don't think there's a huge risk that the robots will lose all your money, but there's every reason to expect they aren't likely to perform better than traditional managers or beat the market. At the end of the day the robots are employing a lot of analysis and management techniques that traditional managers have been using, and since traditional managers use computers to do it efficiently there's not much gain IMO. Yes in theory labour is expensive so cutting it out is good, but in practise, in this case, the amount of money being managed is huge and the human cost is pretty insignificant. I personally don't believe that the reduced fees represent the cost of the human management, I think it's just marketing. There might be some risk that the robots can be 'gamed' but I doubt the potential is very great (your return might in theory be a fraction of a percent less over time because it's going on). The problem here is that the algorithms are functionally broadly known. No doubt every robo adviser has its own algorithms that in theory are the closely guarded secret, but in reality a broad swath of the functional behaviour will be understood by many people in the right circles, and that gives rise to predictability, and if you can predict investment/trading patterns you can make money from those patterns. That means humans making money (taking margin away) from the robots, or robots making money from other robots that are behind the curve. If robo advisers continue to take off I would expect them to under perform more and more.
An accountant should be able to advise on the tax consequences of different classes of investments/assets/debts (e.g. RRSP, TFSA, mortgage). But I would not ask an accountant which specific securities to hold in these vehicles, or what asset allocation (in terms of geography, capitalization, or class (equity vs fixed income vs derivatives vs structured notes etc). An investment advisor would be better suited to matching your investments to your risk tolerance. I don't really see it as worth it at any level because of the risk. If you take $10,000,000 using the ratios you gave making 2% return. That is a profit of $200,000. Definitely not worth it, but lets go to 20% profit that is $2,000,000. To me the risk involved at beint 10 million in debt isn't worth it to make $2,000,000 quickly it would be pretty easy doing something wrong to wipe out everything. "I've just recently launched an open source wealth management platform - wealthbot.io ...  ""Webo"" is mostly targeted at RIA's to help the manage multiple portfolios, etc. Take a look at the demo at demo.wealthbot.io, you'll also find links to github, etc. there. It's a rather involved project, but if you are looking for use cases of rebalancing, portfolio accounting, custodian integration, tax loss harvesting, and many other features available at some of the popular robo-advisors, you might find it interesting." Instead of saying which one is better, which is too subjective, I think it is more important to understand what these institutions are.  They are kind of different animals. Edward Jones pretty much a full service wealth manager.  They meet with you in person, advise you on what retirement and savings accounts to get, they talk to you to evaluate your risk preferences.  They will talk to you about planning for your kids' college and about your insurance situation. They will probably attend your kids' bar mitzvahs and stuff too.  Of course, this isn't free.  With Edward Jones you will pay a fixed percentage of your managed wealth to them every year.  And they will likely put your money in expensive mutual funds.  And those mutual funds will charge a special 12b-1 fee, which is a kickback to the wealth manager.  Plan on giving 2% or so of your total wealth to the manager per year, plus whatever the mutual funds charge.   I don't have experience with Betterment, but they appear to be a robo advisor.  Robo advisors attempt to do the same kinds of things as wealth managers, but rely on computer algorithms and web pages to give you advice whenever possible.  This makes some sense because most people aren't actually that special in terms of their financial situation.  I don't know their cost structure, but presumably it will be significantly cheaper than Edward Jones.  They will almost certainly put you in cheaper funds (index funds and ETF's).  Think of it as a cost-conscious alternative to Edward Jones. Vanguard is a discount broker and a mutual fund family.  Their funds are among the biggest and cheapest in the world.  Fees on many of these funds will be a fraction of the equivalent funds Edward Jones will put you in.  They will charge you nothing at all to manage your money.  They will give you some assistance and advice if you call them but don't expect any house calls.  They aren't particularly in the business of giving advice.  If you know what you want to invest in, this is the cheapest way to do it by far.  Basically you won't have to pay anything at all except the actual cost of the assets you are investing in. Which is the best?  Depends on your own preferences and ability.  If you do not want to learn about personal finance and don't particularly care about whether you are getting the best return--if you don't mind paying for a personal touch--Edward Jones might be a good choice.  For most people who are comfortable asking this type of question online and interested in learning about finance even a little bit, I'd expect that Betterment or Vanguard will be a better choice.  For people who are willing to learn a bit of finance and manage their own affairs, using Vanguard (or a close competitor, like Fidelity) will ultimately result in the most wealth generated (the least given away to the financial industry). Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings.  Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough. In addition to a fee-only advisor, brought up by dg99, you could consider asking your questions on message boards such as Bogleheads.org. I have found the advice amazing, obviously conflict-free, and free. Ramsey promotes Growth mutual funds and says he can screen out examples of good funds with a solid history of 10% returns in a couple of minutes on Morningstar.  The 12% in the video is fairly unrealistic, but 10% or 8% are realistic, especially when you buy into the market every month at all levels rather than chasing winners (buying high). At 10% you will still get $3 million in 40 years, and at 8% you'll get $1.5 million. You need to make sure you include reinvestment of dividends as well as mere price appreciation in these calculations of returns on investment. So yes, you could probably drive really nice cars this way without breaking the bank. Like any financial endeavor, this requires hard work, patience and discipline. The actual work in this case would be fairly minimal in comparison to the patience and discipline: If you get really lucky, you might end up with millions of dollars 40 years from now. If a health disaster, job loss, children's college, etc. strikes then you it might save you from financial ruin. Both are better than the rat race I agree his predictions are too rosy, but this ad is an emotional sales pitch designed to change goals and behavior. Compare it to the psychology and unrealistic claims in some of the auto commercials you see on TV. "My gut is to say that any time there seems to be easy money to be made, the opportunity would fade as everyone jumped on it. Let me ask you - why do you think these stocks are priced to yield 7-9%? The DVY yields 3.41% as of Aug 30,'12.  The high yielding stocks you discovered may very well be hidden gems. Or they may need to reduce their dividends and subsequently drop in price.  No, it's not 'safe.' If the stocks you choose drop by 20%, you'd lose 40% of your money, if you made the purchase on 50% margin. There's risk with any stock purchase, one can claim no stock is safe. Either way, your proposal juices the effect to creating twice the risk.  Edit - After the conversation with Victor, let me add these thoughts. The ""Risk-Free"" rate is generally defined to be the 1yr tbill (and of course the risk of Gov default is not zero). There's the S&P 500 index which has a beta of 1 and is generally viewed as a decent index for comparison. You propose to use margin, so your risk, if done with an S&P index is twice that of the 1X S&P investor. However, you won't buy S&P but stocks with such a high yield I question their safety. You don't mention the stocks, so I can't quantify my answer, but it's tbill, S&P, 2X S&P, then you."