It took me two days to settle on a model, after checking a number of shops. The sum involved was not huge, setting me back by just over $1,000.
But I spent a considerable length of time checking the various brands and the types of guarantee they offered to spare myself any hassle if the set should break down.
I believe most people adopt a similar approach when they buy a consumer product like a fridge or a washing machine. They do not buy on impulse.
When it comes to making financial investments, shouldn't the same care be taken?
That is the essence of the caveat emptor or 'buyer beware' approach which any investor should adopt before he parts with a single cent to buy a financial product.
But many people plonk down big sums of money on a financial product after taking only an hour or so to make their decisions.
And some months later, when the product turns sour - and there have been plenty of instances of that happening recently - they cry foul and complain that they had been misled into buying it in the first place.
They even send out angry e-mail messages and demand that the authorities do something to get their money back.
I am not taking the side of the bank or the financial adviser who sold them the product. Far from it.
But I am flabbergasted that people who take great care in choosing a $1,000 TV set will not even bat an eyelid while blowing $100,000 of their hard-earned savings on some financial products which they have not even heard of.
Even savvy investors are not immune.
I know a seasoned stock-picker who recently lost a princely sum on a structured product sold to him by his bank manager.
'Surely, if it offers only 5 per cent returns, it is low-risk. I should not be losing everything,' he reasoned.
But there lies the fallacy of his argument.
The low returns had lulled him into believing that it was a 'safe' investment. Caveat emptor was thrown out the window and he let his guard down, neglecting to check the product thoroughly. It was a costly oversight.
Similar bitter experiences have seared so many investors that there is now a lively discussion on the Internet on whether such highly structured products should be kept off the street.
It begs the question: Should we accept at face value the assurances given by banks and insurers that our money is safe?
Isn't it better to keep our savings under the bed? Obviously not.
The rapidly deepening financial crisis in the United States is giving ordinary people the best financial education they will ever get - and they will be the poorer for it if they fail to seize the moment and make the most of it.
Until recently, most of us had not even heard of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
But the two US financial giants together owned or guaranteed US$5 trillion (S$7.1 trillion) of loans - that is a mind-boggling sum with 12 zeros.
The newspapers are full of reports about mighty financial giants such as American International Group and Lehman Brothers getting tripped up by derivatives with esoteric-sounding names like collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps (CDS).
It is ironic that these instruments were originally conceived to minimise risks for investors. But their proliferation has led to abuses which threaten to bring down the entire global financial system.
These derivatives also form the building blocks of many of the structured products now blowing up in the face of their hapless investors.
Legendary investor Warren Buffett had warned that such instruments were financial weapons of mass destruction, but it is impossible to turn back the clock and pretend that they do not exist.
Banning such products from our streets will not solve the problem.
What can an investor do under such circumstances?
For starters, try to learn as much about these instruments as possible before making your next investment on a structured product.
Also, make sure you grab a copy of the prospectus which the bank is obliged to put up before it gets the go-ahead to sell the product to retail investors.
Take the failed Lehman mini-bonds. I downloaded a copy of its prospectus after Lehman failed.
Despite my many years of financial reporting experience, I had difficulty understanding what I was reading.
If you are a risk-averse investor, shouldn't that sound an alarm bell already?
But one thing was clear. Despite its name, there was nothing in the Lehman mini-bonds related to conventional bonds at all.
In a nutshell, the investor must be prepared to sit down and do his homework before making any investment decision. It is his hard-earned money on the line - not the bank's or the financial adviser's.
Some years ago, Apple Computer's co-founder Steve Jobs gave graduating college students this parting shot: Stay hungry. Stay foolish.
Investors can use the same advice.
Stay hungry to ensure that you do not pass up any good investment opportunity that comes by, simply because you had lost money previously.
And ask plenty of dumb questions. If you are dissatisfied with the explanation given, take a deep breath and walk away.
