Shares of Apple have been beaten up recently, technically the worst losing streak since 1998, but that’s not what I’d be worried about if I were a long-term shareholder. Losing streaks I can handle – it’s essentially losing a few coin tosses in a row. No, what I find concerning is Tim Cook’s focus. As CEO, he sets the tone for what kind of shareholder base Apple will have.

Last night, Cook either flew across the country to New Jersey from Cupertino, CA, or he dedicated a large chunk of his day on the East Coast, to give “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer a lengthy, sit-down interview on the topic of Apple, and more specifically: AAPL. Now, normally this shouldn’t ring any alarm bells, but timing is everything. “Mad Money” is a show mostly dedicated to trading, and CNBC is a network wholly dedicated to market short-termism. So, effectively, we have the CEO of the largest company in the world trying to calm the fears of people who likely couldn’t care less about where the stock or the company are in ten years. That’s not good.

Cook’s time is a finite resource and it’s unfortunate he thought this would be a good use of it. If the company really is facing some major headwinds, is a Cramer interview really in Apple’s best long-term interest? I seriously doubt it. What if Cook kept his head down and spent this time righting the ship? Then again, this is a CEO who gave in to Carl Icahn’s demand for short-term focus.

We simply have another example of the emotional side of investing wreaking havoc on what should be a simple deal: do the right things and over the long-term the stock will do the talking. The rest is just noise. Sort of like this noise about Icahn selling his entire stake already, after extracting his pound of flesh from Tim Cook.

My advice to Tim, or any other investor feeling bad about a losing streak? Listen to my favorite Tame Impala song and repeat its mantra: “Gotta be above it, gotta be above it, gotta be above it…”

Fees are finally a hot-button issue in the financial world. As they should be! For too long, fees were ignored and accepted as just the “cost of doing business” with an investment advisor, or worse, with a broker, an insurance “guy” or the CPA down the street selling mutual funds.  Thankfully, it’s now becoming painfully obvious to many investors that high fees are, without a shred of doubt, cancerous to investment returns and the individual investor.

Ask yourself: How can any self-respecting advisor feel good about being an advocate for low fees on investment funds, but on the other hand charge clients the highest amount they can get away with?

I started this advisory with a low-fee structure. I was laughed at by numerous consultants and industry “experts” for charging half of what was considered the Gold Standard 1% rate. Now I’m doubling down on the idea that I should win only when clients win – and also on the Amazon.com philosophy of being relentless in finding ways to charge clients the least amount viable instead of the most.

An Update

Instead of a plain 0.50% per year fee on assets under advisement, broken up quarterly with no ceiling, I’m now setting a cap on the quarterly fee at $900. This results in a maximum yearly fee for clients at $3,600 per year. It ends up looking a whole lot like a $300 per month subscription for clients at or above $720,000 in assets under advisement, and that’s by design. Clients with larger portfolios shouldn’t subsidize clients with smaller portfolios.

Also, I now have a minimum fee of $297 per quarter. This number is no mistake and settled there for a reason: it’s intended to replicate a $99 per month charge. A big problem for clients is when they have no (or low) assets it’s hard to get help because advisors don’t see the value if they can’t draw from a large portfolio. My thought is that most people, regardless of account size, can manage to pay the equivalent of $99 per month if they’re serious about getting investment advice. I don’t ever want to turn someone away because they don’t have a large portfolio.

Many advisors are adopting either (1) a monthly subscription model with a large upfront fee for all clients or (2) a flat yearly fee model. Both options give the advisor zero financial incentive to grow client portfolios at any asset level (besides to keep clients just happy enough to not fire them).

For instance, one advisor is gaining publicity with a $4500 yearly fee per relationship. While a flat fee across the board is much better than many of the alternatives, I personally don’t want to be incentivized to only get clients to “sign on the bottom line” — I also want to win when they win, and share in the loss if account values go down — because I believe in the notion that financial incentives are important. This subtle, but important update to my fee model confirms my commitment to help turn smaller portfolios into larger portfolios.

Here’s an interactive chart to show the different estimates of yearly fees based on the models I’ve mentioned:

As you can see above, it is a very painful situation to hire a flat-fee advisor as a client with little or no assets, just as it’s VERY expensive to hire an advisor who charges 1% with no ceiling as a client with a large portfolio.

It would give me a hefty amount of personal satisfaction to again be lambasted for “leaving too much money on the table” by charging clients as little as possible. This is a bit of a twisted sounding dream, true, but would be an absolute confirmation of my desire to take the Amazon.com approach to heart.

Channeling the spirit of Samuel L Jackson’s character in “Pulp Fiction,” I challenge the so-called experts once more:

SAY “YOUR FEES ARE TOO LOW” AGAIN. I DARE YOU…I DOUBLE DARE YOU, (redacted)!

Bring it on, “experts.”