I'm always fascinated with the conflict of interest issue. First, a conflict in this instance can be mitigated if you either pay the advisor for time instead of by AUM, and/or by making sure that the advisor is not compensated by product choice. Second, conflicts are not per se bad (you are paying someone who should know more than you do, especially if you don't have the time or inclination to educate yourself), but they should be disclosed. Finally, if one wants to avoid hiring anyone with a conflict of interest, then think about your lawyer, CPA, doctor, plumber, electrician and probably many others. Technically anyone who is paid to determine or diagnose the problem and gets paid to fix or cure it, has a conflict.
As always you can take this to whatever level you want - whether it makes sense or not. Like cartridge debates - if a .308 will work, why not .243, or .223....
I'll give you an example: worth what you paid for it......
In most industries you can get a second opinion as well if you aren't interested, or too lazy in doing any research into whatever you have a need for - injury, law, finances etc. Google is your friend - most times....
Let's say I hire a financial advisor - he charges 1% for the "management" of my account. That is whether I make money or not. Then he invests me into several funds - all of which charge additional fees. Now I can be around 1.5% I'm paying in fees. Then there's the back door - the advisor gets additional fees to invest new money to the account, gets fees when he "realigns" my portfolio, additional fees for consults, whatever. Now I'm up to say 2% plus in annual fees....
The more "activity" an advisor makes the more he gets. Or he can do "nothing" and get his 1%. He also can get "kickbacks" / incentives or whatever from funds for having their clients invest in them.
If someone takes 10 minutes they can set up a 3, 4 , or 5 fund portfolio and save at least 1% in fees and get the same performance or better. Bogelheads have several, or lazyportfolioetf has more than enough....no need to be so lazy you don't learn about the #1 thing that can make you or break you.....
Bottom line is compare 20 year returns with a 1% increase in returns...tell me that financial advisor is going to get you better returns over that time frame - without just investing you in those same funds?? History has very, very few examples of anyone able to beat the market over that time frame...
Making people feel like it is too complicated, or they don't have enough time / information - whatever, is the "hook" which gets them paid.....whether it is just for their "time" or asset management....
On the other hand, you can start educating yourself - you have 20 years or more (even if you have less) - what's a few hours a year to get better? You might even find you like it and get really good at it....
As for income investing - per the OP.....why is it I have never found a financial advisor that will have you invest in CEF's ?? Is it because they are risky? I don't think so. Are they different? Sure, but educating yourself lowers "risk". I don't mind paying their fund fees because they are doing things I don't necessarily want to deal with - option writing, leverage, all kinds of "advanced" investing techniques. Additionally their fees come out before the distribution - so a 5% distribution is after fees. I have been in them for years...still waiting to get "hurt"....but I "actively" manage my own accounts and pay attention to things....
So there ya go....education lowers "risk" in all things.....