Very good advice; about the only thing left is to advise you to not buy a boat.
Regarding selection of a financial advisor, I have found the following article of interest:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/07/checklist-of-errors/

Howdy,
A thank you to all who post the links, start and participate in the many fine commentaries woven into the message threads.
For those who don't know; I ramble away about this and that, at least once each week.
NOTE: For those who visit MFO, this portfolio is designed for retirement, capital preservation and to stay ahead of inflation creep. This is not a buy and hold portfolio, and is subject to change on any given day; based upon perceptions of market directions. All assets in this portfolio are in tax-sheltered accounts; and any fund distributions are reinvested in the funds. Gains or losses are computed from actual account values.
While looking around..... Is this "As Good As It Gets" for bonds going forward? For some bond sectors, perhaps.Flip a coin, eh? Goldman Sachs (GS) noted in early 2010 that the 10 year note was going to a 5.5% yield and later kinda apologized for that notation. Course, "As Good As It Gets" applies to all investment sectors, too. Are some equities overbought? I sure don't know, but a likely guess would be, yes. GS has a year end number on the SP-500 at 1250. Should I trust that number any more that the other 100 market fortune tellers spouting any day of the week?
I suppose the best two words I read recently about the markets were "we are defensively bullish". Okay, how about "optimistically bearish", too. Perhaps this house just needs to select a broad base of the100 best funds or etf's, set the tickers upon a large sheet of paper, stand back 15 feet and let rip with 12 darts. Done and finished.
Per David Rosenberg, July 27, 2012........
*****Markets were thrilled yesterday when European Central Bank president Mario Draghi said he would "do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. And believe me, it will be enough".
But Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg said these were Draghi's famous last words, much like when Hank Paulson had said in August 2008, "If you have a bazooka in your pocket and people know it, you probably won't have to use it."
Or when Ben Bernanke said in June 2008, "the financial crisis appears to be mostly behind us, and the economy seems to have stabilized and is expanding again."
Rosenberg said Draghi's words were pure rhetoric and he called Draghi a "leader of NATO - No Action, Talk Only - instead of a central bank".
Draghi's comments were widely interpreted as a return to the Securities Markets Program (SMP) which involves purchases of Italian and Spanish bonds. But Rosenberg said if this was in fact costless it would have been activated already.
He also poured cold water on talk about granting the European Stability Mechanism a banking license. "Frankly, this is likely to be a political decision in the end, which is beyond the purview of the central bank." And said a third LTRO (long-term refinancing operation) would do nothing more than buy some time.
Rosenberg argued that the underlying problem of Europe's sovereign and banking sector would ultimately hinge on its fiscal and regulatory policy and that there isn't much Draghi can do about it. *****
Personal note to the above: Mr. Draghi only mentioned saving the "euro"; nothing about saving any countries. Perhaps the "euro" will remain only in Belgium, the home of the ECB; into the future.
The data/numbers below have been updated.
As to sector rotations below (Fidelity funds); for the past week: (Note: any given fund in any of these sectors will have varing degrees of performance based upon where the manager(s) choose to be invested and will not directly reflect upon your particular fund holdings from other vendors.)
--- U.S. equity + .3% through + 2.4%, avg. = + 1.5% YTD = +13.8%
--- Int'l equity - 2% through + 1.6%, avg. = + .4% YTD = +9.2%
--- Fido Select. sectors - .8% through + 3.8%, avg. = + 1.3% YTD = +13%
--- U.S./Int'l bonds - 2.9% through + .12%, avg. = -.70% YTD = + 2.2%
--- HY bonds - .52% through + 0%, avg. = - .2% YTD = + 8.8%
An Overview, M* 1 Week through 5 Year, Multiple Indexes
I have added a few blips related to our portfolio and market observations at the below SELLs/BUYs and Portfolio Thoughts.
SELLs/BUYs THIS PAST WEEK:
NONE
Portfolio Thoughts:
Our holdings had a - .59 % move this past week. We'll stay where we are at for today; to find what the new week and perhaps the end of the month with Mr. Bernanke brings to the plate.
Sidenote: The average return of 200 combined Fidelity retail funds across all sectors (week avg = + .63%, YTD + 10.3%). I will retain the below write from previous weeks; as what we are watching still applies.
--- commodity pricing, especially the energy and base materials areas; copper and related.
--- the $US broad basket value, and in particular against the Euro and Aussie dollar (EU zone and China/Asia uncertainties).
--- price directions of U.S. treasury's, German bunds, U.K. gilts, Japanese bonds; and continued monitoring of Spanish/Italian bond pricing/yield.
--- what we are watching to help understand the money flows: SHY, IEF, TLT, TIP, STPZ, LTPZ, LQD, EMB, HYG, IWM, IYT & VWO; all of which offer insights reflected from the big traders as to the quality/risk, or lack of quality/risk; in various bond sectors.
I have retained the following links for those who may choose to do their own holdings comparison against the fund types noted.
The first two links to Bloomberg are for their list of balanced/flexible funds; although I don't always agree with the placement of fund styles in their categories.
Bloomberg Balanced
Bloomberg Flexible
These next two links are for conservative and moderate fund leaders YTD, per MSN.
Conservative Allocation
Moderate Allocation
A reflection upon the links above; we attempt to establish a "benchmark" for our portfolio to help us "see" how our funds are performing. Aside from viewing many funds within the balanced/flexible funds rankings (the above links), a quick and dirty group of 5 funds (below) we watch for psuedo benchmarking are the following:
***Note: these week/YTD's per M*
VWINX .... - .41% week, YTD = + 7.67%
PRPFX .... - .02% week, YTD = + 3.32%
SIRRX ..... - .13 % week, YTD = + 4.67%
TRRFX .... + .25% week, YTD = + 8.05%
VTENX ... + 0% week, YTD = + 7.13%
Such are the numerous battles with investments attempting to capture a decent return and minimize the risk.
We live and invest in interesting times, eh? Hey, I probably forgot something; and hopefully the words make some sense. Comments and questions always welcomed.
Good fortune to you, yours and the investments.
Take care,
Catch
---Below is what M* x-ray has attempted to sort for our portfolio, as of June 1, 2012---
From what I find, M* has a difficult time sorting out the holdings with bond funds.
U.S./Foreign Stocks 1.9%
Bonds 93.9% ***
Other 4.2%
Not Classified 0.00%
Avg yield = 3.72%
Avg expense = .55%
***about 16% of the bond total are high yield category (equity related cousins)
---This % listing is kinda generic, by fund "name"; which doesn't always imply the holdings, eh?
-Investment grade bond funds 28.2%
-Diversified bond funds 22.4%
-HY/HI bond funds 14.5%
-Total bond funds 32.4%
-Foreign EM/debt bond funds .6%
-U.S./Int'l equity/speciality funds 1.9%
This is our current list: (NOTE: I have added a speciality grouping below for a few of fund types)
---High Yield/High Income Bond funds
FAGIX Fid Capital & Income
SPHIX Fid High Income
FHIIX.LW Fed High Income
DIHYX TransAmerica HY
---Total Bond funds
FTBFX Fid Total
PTTRX Pimco Total
---Investment Grade Bonds
ACITX Amer. Cent. TIPS Bond
DGCIX Delaware Corp. Bd
FBNDX Fid Invest Grade
FINPX Fidelity TIPS Bond
OPBYX Oppenheimer Core Bond
---Global/Diversified Bonds
FSICX Fid Strategic Income
FNMIX Fid New Markets
DPFFX Delaware Diversified
LSBDX Loomis Sayles
PONDX Pimco Income fund (steroid version)
PLDDX Pimco Low Duration (domestic/foreign)
---Speciality Funds (sectors or mixed allocation)
FRIFX Fidelity Real Estate Income (bond/equity mix)
---Equity-Domestic/Foreign
NONE outright, with the exception of equities held inside of some of the above funds.

Reply to @ducrow:
Happy to help! Some thoughts
1. New fund. A hedge fund may not always translate to a good mutual fund. See NARFX (which was sold and turned into another fund.) Not comparing management of NARFX to this fund or anything, but I suppose it's a belief that a hedge fund strategy does not always carry over to the mutual fund world. However, the Whitebox fund is doing well so far.
2. FPA Crescent (FPACX) may have a couple of issues (structural - it could probably close), but I think it's still an excellent fund with a great manager in Romick (whose views I continue to agree with a great deal.) Personally, I don't know if I'd replace it or if this is an apples-to-apples replacement. The Whitebox fund is a new fund, but I think this is going to be a unique/unusual offering in that part of the stock holdings may be broad, but there may be a sizable portion in contrarian ideas/plays/themes - a further discussion by the manager regarding his nat gas theme is available in this Barrons article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/05/31/why-it-might-finally-be-time-for-natural-gas-to-make-a-comeback/)
Also note, from the Whitebox quarterly report: "Our fund is not currently “market neutral.” We have a strong “long-bias”. At
other times we may have a strong short bias. Our returns will reflect at least a
portion of day to day, normal market volatility. Our goal is to outperform not by
delivering smooth returns all the time. Our goal is to outperform by doing two
things. (1) Avoiding catastrophic capital losses that can derail an investment
program for years, or forever. (2) Being invested in areas of exceptional
opportunity wherever in securities markets those opportunities arise."
So, the fund definitely has the flexibility to dial up and down risk, to the point where it can have a "strong short bias."
3. Amusing name. Whitebox is a play on the opaque "black box" strategies that hedge funds often have. Their big thing is being transparent with shareholders in communications and otherwise.
4. Again, while the hedge fund may be highly regarded, new mutual fund. However, there is a lot available online about the manager. Their "Whitebox Selected Research" is enjoyable reading, both from the articles from others and the articles from Whitebox. Redleaf wrote a book, "Panic", about the financial crisis, which does not appear to be available new anymore from amazon, but is available used, and got good reviews.
5. One other interesting note: the co-manager of the fund is ROB VOGEL
Rob Vogel joined Whitebox Advisors, LLC in 1999 as a convertible bond trader. From 1995 – 1999, Rob was a convertible bond trader for EBF & Associates of Minneapolis. From 1991 – 1995, Rob was an actuary and ran statistical models to estimate insurance reserves. Rob holds an MBA from the University of Minnesota and a BS in Applied Mathematics and Statistics from the University of Florida.
If you look under the Whitebox Selected Research, there is an article from Hedge Fund Review, awarding "Whitebox Concentrated Convertible Arbitrage" the "Best Non-Directional Hedge Fund Over 10 Years"
So, beyond what's available on Redleaf, this gives you some idea about the background of another manager on the fund:
http://www.whiteboxselectedresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/HFR-Article-on-Convertible.pdf
Under that article about the convertible arb hedge fund: "The fund’s investments are
guided by Whitebox’s distinctive
market philosophy. One of the core
themes is to “be more invested at the
bottom than the top”. This reflects
Whitebox’s view that contrary to
conventional investment theories,
markets actually tend to be more
risky when they are less volatile."
“When markets are less volatile,
prices are generally higher, which
probably makes them riskier,” Vogel
explains. “We aim to be less exposed
when markets are tranquil so that,
if the cycle turns and prices get
cheaper, we can add to positions.”
As for the last manager, I think this is awfully interesting: " Prior to joining Whitebox Advisors, LLC in 2002, Jason spent two years working with Nobel Laureate Myron Scholes at Oak Hill Platinum Partners where he developed models for long/short equity strategies. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Scholes
____
Lastly, I don't really want to tell David what to do, but I do agree this is really a fund that would be perfect for a profile. It only has 9.5M under management, but a pretty highly regarded management team.

Thank you, david. I feel very comfortable managing a basket of funds that meet my objective. It's either I identify and manage/rebalance, etc. these investments or I involve a fee only CFP. The insurance 'salesman' has been shown the exit; the bank 'financial advisor' won't be giving me his pitch.
I will review-check out your recommendations. Balanced is good, as is simple. Do these funds appear to you to be tax friendly? It looks like you did much research analyzing risk and more before coming to a decision. Thank you very much for taking the time to share your efforts with me.

Rising food prices could be a problem. But i don't think developed countries are immune to rising food prices either. It could be said that several EM countries still promote growth where rising food & energy cost may be less of a burden compaired against developed Europe and US. And it should be said that EM countries might even be more business friendly too.
Seafarer may not have the financial reserves for hiring staff currently ? Perhaps that is one reason why he's sticking with what he knows - asia. I'm also mindful that other managers ( Bruce Berkowitz, etc ) had great success without much staff either.
Grandeur Peak went down the other road - they had a whole team in place

Over the very long-term, financial markets tend to reflect reality. In rate sensitive bonds, the most important being inflationary expectations for future years and, to a lesser extent, political & economic stability here and abroad as BobC references. (For lower tier bonds, ability of issuer to repay is crucial - but sounds like discussion's more about higher tier). We came close to a deflationary collapse in '08 - and still may get there - no predictions from this corner. If you think that's where we're headed, buy bonds. You'll be able to purchase food, shelter, cars etc. for less 10 years down the road while growing your nest-egg at a compounded 1.73% as of this morning. But, if you think inflation will run significantly more than 1.73% (compounded annually), than bonds today do not reflect reality very well. Catch has made much of the "capital appreciation" potential of rate sensitive bonds. That's true as long as investors continue to buy - eerily similar to the speculation that drove NASDAQ to 5000 a decade ago or real estate through the roof more recently. Now, much $$ was made from the "capital appreciation" in these sectors even after prices soared into the stratosphere. Nothing wrong with that as long as you're not the last one standing when the music stops.
Don't much follow bonds ... but there have been some "wiffs" of inflation recently which probably spooked some of the bigger players. Housing prices in some U.S. markets have started to rise. Food prices look to be on the rise due to drought conditions across much of the country. Gas is back over $4.00 in many places. Getting back to "reality", if you think 1.73% compounded over 10 years represents a reasonable return of your investment after taking into consideration your inflationary expectations, than snatch up some treasuries this morning. If you believe that's not realistic, than they represent a poor long term investment. As BobC noted, things don't move in a straight line. Treasuries will rally at some point and may do very well again if deflationary signals return or if the speculative fervor resumes. In thinking how financial markets move, Abby Joseph Cohen used to use the supertanker analogy. I like the words of T.S. Eliot who when discussing how the world will end says: "Not with bang, but a whimper." A good analogy I think for how painfully long it might take for bond markets to change direction.

Opps - sorry, BobC. I will ask my attorney to recommend a fee only - NOT fee based CFP. Typing faster than I'm thinking.
I called the insurance salesman for an appointment to sign the papers. He asked if I could meet Wednesday. I told him we didn't need a meeting - I only needed to sign the papers. He asked me if his company could help me. I said 'no'. I told him unlike my uncle I was making my own investment decisions and have for years. He asked me if I was unhappy with his company. I said 'no'. He asked if in the future he could help me. I said 'no' and thank you. Hope that's over. He is mailing me the papers to sign. Maybe this is finally the end of our 'financial' (or otherwise) relationship.
Thank you again.

Reply to @BobC:
Several states still have estate taxes (or inheritance taxes) that kick in at $1M. For example, NYS's rises quickly to 16%. Ignore state taxes at one's peril.
Regarding seeking advice - I agree with you that planning comes first, before investing. If you don't know what you're investing for, or when you'll need what amounts of money, you're flying blind with the investing. It seems that most "advisors" focus on the investing without knowing the person (or even the whole portfolio); I've certainly found that to be the case with the friendly folks at (insert name of discount brokerage here) who seem eager to review your holdings, but not look at the big picture.
It seems to me that there are basically three ways that a service provider can get paid. If it's done "right", they should all come out to roughly the same amount of compensation - a fair amount of pay for good work. And they all create incentives that can distort the service:
1) Commission - encourages churning, using investments that pay higher commission rate (e.g. insurance)
2) Percentage of job (e.g. percentage of AUM for financial advisor) - encourages targeting higher return investments regardless of fit, controlling more assets even if they'd be better invested in something the advisor can't offer
3) Fee for service
a - fixed amount for a deliverable, e.g. investment plan, a will, etc. - encourages short cuts, less time dedicated to doing complete job
b - hourly rate - encourages padding time, scope of job
Nothing is perfect, and one needs to be prepared to push back. Also to look hard for someone who is genuinely interested in doing the best job, not making the most dollars.

Thank you Old Joe and BobC! Yes, unfortunately the insurance salesman is still in the picture. My estate-trust attorney provided him the EIN last week and left a message for him to call me to sign the papers that will initiate the transfer of funds to me as trustee. He hasn't called me, and as soon as I complete this message I will try to reach him to ONLY sign the papers. My attorney told me he is planning on meeting with me and my husband RE: my distribution. Won't happen. He is so persistent. He had my uncle in many annuities and life insurance as you would expect. I would just sit back and observe the sales pitch but keep myself out of it. It wasn't my place - it wasn't my money. At one point when my uncle told him he could get a better policy with another company, this salesman brought in the 'top gun' to convince my uncle. Pressure - pressure! It worked. I will just have to be very, very firm with him.
RE: the bank. They have served me well in other areas, however, a former bank manager sat in on a meeting with a client and a former 'financial advisor' who was suggesting an annuity. The mgr. interrupted him and told him that was not an appropriate investment for this customer. Kudos to her! Staff has changed at my bank, and they say the new advisor won't push annuities. They want me to schedule a meeting and at least listen. Doubtful I will.
Thank you for clarifying fee only and fee based. Yes, I will ask my attorney if he would recommend a fee based CFP. I will also check out FPAnet.org. How would I talk with you offline?
In closing, the majority of our rollover IRA's/TSA-403b are invested where I have the option of 4.25% in their guaranteed account. Other options include TRP, VG, Fid - fine funds. I have a majority in the fixed fund and likely will transfer more into this fund now that I will have these additional monies without that guarantee. I have had a WellsTrade account that holds an IRA rollover for many years. It is not perfect but has served my needs. I am very pleased with the mix of funds. I manage it completely online and could do the same with these new monies once I determine a mix of funds/investments. The difference is now I need to be aware of tax liability.
Again, your efforts are very much appreciated. Thank you very much!

Reply to @perpetual_Bull: Thanks, I did not realize...but not surprised. Dissapointed though that Morningstar appears to call no attention to any regulatory issue.
American Funds American Mutual A AMRMX, for example, rates Gold for all five of Morningstar's pillars. Here is Parent Pillar assessment:

No reference of the censure described in the LA Time article: "An appeals panel of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the self-policing agency of the securities business, upheld the group’s three-year-old case alleging that the sales arm of L.A.-based American Funds broke industry rules in rewarding brokerages that sold its funds to investors."
And under stewardship, Morningstar gives an "A" overall, but remains "Neutral" on regulatory part:

Thanks again perpetual_Bull for shedding light on this topic.

Reply to @Mark: A couple of somewhat "Berkshire-like" vehicles (no particular order)
1. Greenlight Re (GLRE). This is a reinsurance company where the float is invested with the same positioning as hedge fund manager David Einhorn's long/short Greenlight Capital. It has not done that great in the last year or two - it really follows peer companies at times - but is somewhat interesting. It is a Cayman company, and there are other hedge funds looking for permanent capital that are planning the same thing - Third Point and SAC. I don't own GLRE.
2. Fairfax Financial (FRFHF.PK) Fairfax's float is invested by Prem Watsa, who has often been called the Canadian Buffett. Fairfax also actually generated a positive return in 2008 betting against subprime. From Morningstar: " In recent years, Fairfax produced stellar investment results as it capitalized on the financial crisis with prescient credit derivative bets. Fairfax's investment record over the long run is very impressive as its common stock portfolio has outperformed the S&P 500 by an average of 8.7 percentage points per year over the past 15 years. Similarly, its bond investments outperformed the Merrill Lynch U.S. Corporate Index by an average of 4.1 percentage points per year over the past 15 years. These outsized investment gains have translated into book value gains averaging nearly 25% per year since 1985." (http://quote.morningstar.com/stock/s.aspx?t=FRFHF&region=USA&culture=en-us) I don't own Fairfax.
3. Leucadia (LUK) There is no insurance component, but Leucadia is otherwise often compared to Berkshire and, despite a poor last year and unpleasant 2008, the conglmerate otherwise has an excellent very long track record. The conglomerate is a mix of holdings in public (financial firm Jefferies) and private (including a joint venture with Berkshire Hathaway and even vineyards. I don't own LUK - it did not do well last year but for believers in the long-term record of the firm, it would be a value play.
Other conglomerates that are less Berkshire-like that I like are Brookfield Asset Management (BAM) and Jardine Matheson (JHMLY.PK) Jardine is an Asian conglomerate that has been around since the 1800's and owns everything from grocery stores to Asian IKEAs to Manadrin Oriental hotels and more. Brookfield is an enormous Canadian conglomerate consisting of renewable energy assets, infrastructure assets and massive real estate assets around the world. The assets are largely in spin-offs (much of the real estate assets will be spun off in another limited partnership later this year - if that happens, shareholders in BAM will get a special dividend) and Brookfield is an asset manager. Both yield +/- 2% otherwise. I own both Jardine and subsidiary Dairy Farm, as well as Brookfield and Brookfield Infrastructure (BIP)
Berkshire is Berkshire, one certainly can't argue with one of the most successful records of all time. I do have some issues with some of the subsidiaries, which I think .I think it will be interesting to see Berkshire's eventual transition.
The issues with Fairfax is that it's nearly $400 a share and it does generate a dividend (about 2.5%)
History of Jardine Matheson from the 1800's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jardine_Matheson_Holdings
DEFINITELY DO RESEARCH BEFORE INVESTING IN ANY OF THE ABOVE.

Seems what you're really asking is what should you do - quite different from what any one of us might do. Nothing wrong with waiting for six months or so while you formulate a plan. And, if considering exposure to equities, dollar averaging in over a few years not a bad idea anyway. Above all, do what's within your knowledge base and comfort level. Managing finances, whether a household budget, a million $$ inheritance, or money you've slowly stashed away, is an ongoing life-long process. So, simple answers not likely to solve much if anything.
---
"Should I not try to do this by myself?" --- The fact you are asking suggests you probably don't possess the financial background, experience, and comfort level needed to deal with your issue. A fee-based planner is likely a good option.
"Should I be looking for an adviser who doesn’t sell a product but may give me direction on how to invest this distribution?" - Yes. Those trying to sell you a product would likely have a conflict of interest that may not serve you well.
"I checked out local members of Napfa, and there are base fees of $5000, $10,000, 1% of 2m." --- 1% of amount invested does not in itself sound outrageous. Consider that a commission-based advisor might well put you into "loaded" funds where up front commissions of 4-5% or higher are common. Additionally, such products often carry ongoing "12b-1" fees, insuring a future income stream to the selling agent.
"I did have a conversation with a Vanguard rep and was going to visit the local Fidelity office as well as T. Rowe Price" --- High regard for Price based on 15-20 years with them. I find their integrity, resources and abilities managing a wide array of funds exceptional.
"My bank wants to talk with me, too" --- I'd be leery of this except for the portion you wish to commit to fixed income instruments. Nothing against banks. Just think there are better options for diversification and growth, as many have mentioned.

Dian, it would seem to me that you have a good background and grip on the situation. If I read your initial post correctly you feel that your financial house is in pretty good order and this gift is icing on the cake, a truly great position to be in.
You have already received a number of useful checkoff items and suggestions (e.g. eliminating bad debt, avoid the banker, spread your assets around, avoid the bankers advice, watch out for the sharks, avoid the banker etc.) and did I mention avoiding the banker. You might also wish to include insurance sales folks in that avoid list when it comes to what you should do with the inheritance. You have also received some fund and annuity suggestions and information. You have not mentioned how the assets (inheritance) are currently allocated and maybe it's not important to this discussion except that your uncle was a saver and apparently did quite well in that regard. You mentioned looking for tax free or at least tax-friendly investments. I'm not sure if you are looking to put things on cruise control or if you might want to dabble in active management.
Assuming I have everything correct so far, and in what might be considered blasphemy on a mutual fund discussion board, might I suggest that you give uncle Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway A or B shares) your gift to invest. Here's why I would do this.
1. Any mutual fund, annuity, rental property and so on is going to come with on-going fees, possibly taxes, maintenance costs, headaches and whatever else I'm forgetting until the day they are exhausted or disposed of. You may or may not wrestle with thoughts of "Gee, did I buy the right fund, plan, property" or wonder if X, Y or Z might be better suited or more appropriate.................. the list is endless.
2. Berkshire Hathaway is notorious for not paying dividends or distributions (read: no taxes) and your gains will just keep accumulating until "you" decide to sell at a time and place convenient and tax-managed by you.
3. If you buy the 'B' shares you will be able to "gift" them at possibly tax-friendly opportunities to family and charitable causes.
You will of course pay stock trading commissions but you can minimize those depending on your choice of brokerage firms. I am also fully aware that the current managers of Berkshire (Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger) are getting up in years but I am not concerned with their succession plans. It is something that you will have to look into and decide for yourself.
Just an alternative thought, quick and dirty. Congratulations and best wishes.

Regarding debt - generally a good priority, for financial reasons (reasonable certain rate of return), psychological reasons, and planning reasons. But if that debt is a mortgage, these days, it's hard to make a financial case for paying that off. A mortgage is effectively a way to leverage investments - you borrow at a low rate (the rate of your mortgage) and invest for a (hopefully) higher rate of return. Both the mortgage and the investments are long term, so they're well-matched. If we were not in such a low interest rate environment, I'd say one should pay off mortgages, but right now, it depends on your comfort level.
Regarding annuities - these are effectively equivalent to nondeductible IRAs. You put in post tax money, and what you pull out is taxed as ordinary income, except for the amount you put in. (Because of a quirk in the tax laws, the first money you pull out of annuities, unlike IRAs, is fully taxable; it's only when you draw down to the initial investment that you get the post tax money out without more taxes. Unless you annuitize, and almost nobody does that.)
I write all of this because nondeductible IRAs (unless you convert them to Roths) and annuities generally don't make sense (run the numbers) unless you have the money invested in them for decades. I think I'm one of the relatively few people here who will speak positively about deferred annuities, but only where there make sense.
Regarding the ones Catch named - Fidelity's VIP Contra fund (3*) is managed by the same team that manages Fidelity All-Sector Equity (FSAEX), which I view as a clone. It is not managed by Danoff. Regarding Growth Co. (a retail fund FDGRX, managed by Steve Wymer since 2007), the annuity offers VIP Growth Opportunities, managed by Wymer since 2009. It is this fund that's the clone (or near clone) of Growth Co;, not VIP Growth, or VIP Growth Stock, two other funds offered in the annuity.
Also to consider in the annuity space (if you're still so inclined) is TIAA-CREF. Their Intelligent Variable Annuity charges 35 baiss points in a $100K annuity (25 basis points over $500K), and this drops to 10 basis points after a decade. They offer a similar number of funds to Fidelity, and the funds in their annuity are usually institution class shares (cheaper). A wider variety of fund companies and managers, and generally better performance.
Regarding muni bonds - despite all the horror stories, they're still some of the safest investments. The general rule of thumb is that individual bonds make sense only if you have a min of $100K to invest (taxable), or $50K (muni). With the slight increase in muni bonds these days, maybe $100K+ in munis might also be advisable. The problem with munis (as with all bonds) these days is that the rates are so ridiculously low, that it's hard to justify the risk. You're looking at 10 years just to get 2%. Remember that you're effectively locked in - individual bonds are expensive to trade, and if rates drop, you won't get 100c on the dollar for your bond (i.e. you'll only break even by swapping bonds, even if you ignore trading costs). I really like munis as a class - unlike taxables, you are more likely to get what you pay for (out to 20 years, yield seems fairly proportional to maturity), relatively low risk (still), and about a decade ago, they got more transparent and easier to buy. Still, I'm not sure what strategy to apply to them in this market. (See last paragraph below for short term muni fund.)
Regarding insurance - Life insurance has two uses I'm aware of. One is for estate planning - a way to transfer assets and avoid estate taxes. Depending on your assets and plans (e.g. not needed for bequests to charities), this might make sense. A second is to replace income that others rely upon if you pass away while you're still bringing in income. If you're close to retirement, this might not make sense for you.
What Consumer Reports says about long term care insurance is that it makes sense primarily for people with assets between $200K and $2M. So this is something that you may or may not want, depending on age and assets. If you are considering this, I suggest you look into policies that participate in Partnership for Long Term Care. This is a way of getting Medicaid to take over (wtihout spending down all assets) if the long term care policy runs out.
I'm sorry that most of the comments above seem to be of the nature "don't do this, don't do that". It's relatively easy to point out the limitations of various products and services. It's much harder, especially with the limited information here (and you don't want to disclose more in a public forum), to say what would fit your particular needs. A good financial planner (possibly working in conjunction with a lawyer and/or accountant) , on a fee basis (not commission), who will look at your whole picture (not just investments), would seem like money well spent. You could drop the cash into something like Vanguard Limited Term Tax-Exempt Bond Fund (VMLUX), while figuring out what to do. Something like this doesn't seem to fluctuate by more than a percent over months, and pays about 2% federally tax-free. So at least you get something for your troubles.

Put me down there too... Scott has been a great help to me in introducing alternate and sector funds. Amazing guy- pretty young, but thinks like a guy with experience well beyond his years. He's a born financial cynic, and that helps a lot.

Yup, Bull, hear you. In '87 after selling a rental property, a phone call comes from a 'financial advisor'. Obviously a public document showed this sale, and that is how he found us. We agreed to meet - very foolish of me - but then again, the positive out of the negative eventually arrived - I learned to be my own advisor. He had placed us in load funds - sorry but my ignorance didn't even allow me to ask what that meant - one was 8% and one was 5% - I'm embarrassed to admit. Yikes - shutter when I think of it. Of course, within a month the crash/correction of '87 came, and, of course, he sells us out at the bottom and just leaves us there. No attempt to get us back in while the slow climb upwards begins. He even had the nerve several years later to call us and ask us to do retirement planning with him - a new area he was entering into. Didn't happen. We all have our stories. I try to protect my adult children from this thru my experiences. Hope I'm making a difference. "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me," Leaving now for that Friday night fish fry - will return later.

Hello Scott RE: Munis - I do think about the cities heading for bankruptcy. But, that shows my ignorance in this area, because not all munis hold that debt. There are many high flyers out there, but for how long? Wells Fargo has an Advantage Muni fund that has done very well. Wells Fargo took over Strong Funds, and the WF Advantage funds are managed down the road from where I live. Risk Parity is a new fund classification for me - always changing - always learning. Very interesting fund. A quick google found AQRIX has 5m minimum for individual investor, 100,000 thru financial advisor. AQRNX has 1m minimum for individual w/1.48 gross expense ratio. I'll look into it further. Thank you.

Just received your edit, Bull, and Mark's response. I don't plan to invest these $'s with my bank, but they sure want to talk with me. I thought maybe I would just listen to their 'financial planner' and maybe FWIW just take his proposal to the CFP as stated above - another learning experience. Thank you for your trust and advice Re: Bob C.

Hey Bob- there's a situation regarding financial planning that could benefit greatly from your input here: ⇒ What would you do with a large inheritance?

So happy to be of help! :-)
A few minor notes/clarifications:
The adviser's fee is partially performance based and partially a standard fee (it's definitely not "hedge-fund style" 2% and 20%, but it is similar in that there is a standard management fee and a very small % of performance fee)
I forget the exact % of the fee, but it seemed reasonable. Given that the adviser has what I would call an "absolute return" approach (long/short flexibility, use of a fairly wide array of various funds), I thought the fee seemed reasonable. However, I think the performance fee works because the adviser is dealing almost entirely with people at or near retirement. So, while the adviser is very active in terms of moving and monitoring, the risk level is acceptable and the ability for them to go short is a nice added touch - in other words, just because there is a performance fee has not meant taking on oversized risk in order to try to boost fees.
These family members had been previously working with someone who was sort of a broker and sort of a financial adviser, but it became very clear that the funds used were funds that were told to be used "from higher up" in the company and that this broker/adviser wasn't really paying much attention - it was get into some of the funds the company wanted to sell (although some of them weren't the worst funds ever), and then largely autopilot.
Having some fee based on performance as well as a sort of "absolute return" approach with the new adviser almost seems to make the fees more reasonable because of the amount of work and monitoring the new adviser is doing, whereas the fees for the prior adviser/broker didn't seem to be really going towards much of anything. You had a broker whose view of a 2008-style situation was "it's a bad year, it'll come back" and the adviser who actively worked in 2008 to protect against downside significantly, then was able to find opportunities when things started to come back.
I think it's tough to find someone good, but from my viewpoint (and not just the above scenario, but watching other family near retirement age), you definitely want a financial planner and not a broker. I think it's also good to get a sense of the client base - that's not a must, but I think getting someone geared towards people near retirement age and understanding of risk tolerance is not a bad idea.
You may want to devote some money to an adviser and handle some money on your own.
Poster Bob C is an adviser and can probably offer some great advice about how to best research an adviser/what questions to ask/etc.