Is there some obscure law that prevents the widespread use of collars? Perhaps the problem is with me. Perhaps I see a very simple solution to a very complex problem and there are obstacles that are beyond my understanding. But I believe too many people have decided that options are not worth discussing. "End of story," as Tony Soprano would say.

To my mind, options are the perfect risk-reducing investment tool for solving this very important problem of how the individual investor reduces the volatility of a portfolio and avoid those occasional financial disasters.

Not everyone's willing to place a limit on the amount they hope to earn by investing. Such investors have to find their own solution for managing risk. But surely investors who already have a nest egg that they can't afford to lose would be interested. Surely those who demand insurance against loss but who are still accumulating the wealth they feel is needed would be interested. As would any conservative investor, regardless of age or net worth.

I wrote The Rookie's Guide to Options for individual investors who enjoy hands-on portfolio management. No need to trust a broker or advisor to manage an account as a fiduciary should -- with the best interests of the client being the only consideration.

Wall Street doesn't work that way -- the broker comes first and the client comes next. There's much to be said for doing it yourself. For those who can't manage their own finances, I'm out to get the financial planners and advisors of the world to join the "options team." That'll take some time.

Maybe it's the highly paid professionals who need this book the most: The DWS team that tried to develop such a family of funds but failed to use options, financial planners who failed to protect the value of their clients' assets, traditional stockbrokers who shun options. These "professionals" are amateurs from my point of view. I know that's harsh, but how can they be allowed to get away with ignoring the needs of the investing public?

Collars aren't difficult to understand. They aren't difficult to employ. They protect the value of an investment portfolio. They allow room for profits to be earned. Sure, they're not perfect because potential profit is limited. But when the goal is protecting assets, especially among investors who want to keep what they already have, collars solve the problem.

With a family of funds, the investor can choose among actively managed funds and passive funds (and mimic the performance of a broad-based index). There's no need to invest with 100% of your positions collared. I recommend funds with 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% protection. Something for everyone.

Perhaps collars represent a solution that's just too simple. Perhaps they're not sexy enough for mutual fund, life insurance, and bank executives. After all, if it's as simple as I am suggesting, who'd pay these people the enormous salaries and bonuses they earn? I'd start my own managed mutual fund composed of collar strategies, but I'm a bit short on seed money -- a few billion dollars short.