However, there's still some value in having a human who's somewhat familiar with you and your personality pick up the phone when you call to execute a trade. Most of the value that advisers offer is getting you to stay in the market over time by keeping you from making stupid decisions. They're certainly incentivized to do so, but a lot of investors lose out by making thoughtless, fear-driven decisions to buy and sell. The actual amount that they lose out varies, but I've seen a range of around 2-8% in a number of studies. This [1] says average investors lag the index by 5% a year, which I'm inclined to believe.
Part of the issue that Murtza is likely experiencing is that this psychological function of a financial adviser--getting people to keep their investments in place over the long term--does not feel good. In fact, it feels like lying and it is.
The question for most investors isn't whether they can get a better return by switching to a passively managed fund, but rather whether they have the discipline to manage their own investments when they get scared/exuberant. This is not to say that advisers aren't prone to the same behavioral defects, but it's probably better to have someone on the other end of the phone who will try to get you to explain why you're selling out or buying in.
The problem for a lot of employees--particularly in the private wealth space--is that they think they're getting involved in some mythical "Wall Street," which doesn't really exist. Good advisers are 90% Mom (calms you down when you're excited) 10% psychiatrist (gives you tools to help yourself). They are not investors. They are in the business of preventing harm.
Of course, scummy advisers exist and are the standard. I'm just suggesting they are not the only kind in existence.
Full disclosure: I work in finance in an advisory capacity.
[1] http://moneyover55.about.com/od/howtoinvest/a/averageinvesto...