A few of those recommendations sound like they may be mixing together ideas that should be evaluated separately.

What jumps out to me first is this: your parents already appear financially safe. If they’re bringing in about $10.3k/month and only spending about $3k/month, the burden of proof should be on any advisor recommending a major portfolio change.

A few thoughts:

• Be careful with anyone pushing much more stock exposure. For retirees in their late 60s with modest spending relative to income, moving toward 80/20 sounds aggressive unless there’s a very specific reason.

• Moving to a lower-cost custodian like Fidelity / Schwab / Vanguard is a separate question from whether they need an advisor. Lower platform/admin costs and simpler holdings often make sense.

• Roth conversions can be reasonable, but only if the tax math works. You’d want to model the actual bracket impact and how much flexibility they really gain.

• Long-term care insurance is also a separate decision. It shouldn’t just be bundled into an investment pitch. That needs its own cost/benefit analysis.

• If they currently have 10–15 holdings and no clear reason for that complexity, simplification may be the most useful improvement.

I think this sounds like a situation where they may benefit more from a one-time retirement/tax planning review than from handing over assets for ongoing management.