What Participants Say
Heard From Those Who Attended
A selection of feedback from participants across our three programmes — unedited in substance, varied in what they valued most.
← Back to Home340+
Participants since 2019
4.7/5
Average programme rating
83%
Proceed to further programme
6+
Years running cohorts
Participant Feedback
Reviews from Our Programmes
"I had been reading about gold for two or three years before attending the four-week course. What I hadn't found elsewhere was an honest account of where the evidence is uncertain. That was genuinely useful to me."
Kenneth Cheung
Kowloon · Gold Overview, March 2025
"The self-review component in the ten-week programme was unexpectedly valuable. Writing down an honest account of what I actually hold — and why — surfaced some assumptions I hadn't examined. I found that more useful than any external advice I've received."
Sandra Ng
Wan Chai · Retirement Portfolio, January 2025
"I appreciated that the programme did not attempt to simplify things that are not simple. The section on cost structures in the Alternative Assets Primer was particularly clear — it changed how I read provider literature."
Michael Lam
Sha Tin · Alt. Assets Primer, February 2025
"Small group made a real difference. There were eight of us in the cohort and the discussions were substantive. People brought different professional backgrounds and the questions they asked improved the sessions considerably."
Raymond Chan
Tuen Mun · Gold Overview, December 2024
"I had expected something more promotional. What I got was a methodical look at the evidence, including the evidence that doesn't support a simple allocation case for gold. I found that more credible, not less."
Helen Yuen
Kowloon City · Alt. Assets Primer, March 2025
"The written materials are noticeably well-produced. I kept them, annotated them over the following months, and still return to them. That kind of durability is not something I associate with most financial education I've attended."
James Tang
Central · Retirement Portfolio, February 2025
Participant Journeys
How the Programmes Were Used
Case Study 01
Starting point
A 54-year-old engineer had read extensively about gold but had not examined the cost structures of different ownership vehicles available in Hong Kong. He enrolled in the four-week Gold Overview.
What shifted
The module on custody and spread costs in physical gold versus ETFs changed his understanding of the effective long-run cost differential. He had previously underestimated the total cost of physical ownership.
Subsequent step
He attended the Alternative Assets Primer six months later to examine the broader landscape before making any allocation decision. He has not yet made a change to his holdings — which he describes as the appropriate outcome.
"The cost module alone was worth the fee. I had not looked at the numbers carefully enough."
Case Study 02
Starting point
A 49-year-old professional in financial services attended the ten-week Retirement Portfolios programme, primarily to understand whether her existing views on gold were well-founded or merely habitual.
What shifted
The written self-review component surfaced a meaningful inconsistency between her stated view on portfolio volatility and her actual asset allocation. She found the process of writing it out formally more clarifying than she expected.
Subsequent step
She subsequently reviewed her portfolio with an independent financial adviser, approaching that conversation with considerably more specific questions than she would otherwise have brought.
"The self-review was a genuine discipline, not a formality. I'd recommend it to anyone at this stage."
Case Study 03
Starting point
A couple in their early 50s attended the Alternative Assets Primer together. They had differing views on the role gold should play in their retirement planning and hoped that shared exposure to structured content would help them reach a common basis for discussion.
What shifted
They found that the disagreement persisted, but became more precisely located: the question was not whether to hold gold, but what proportion was defensible given their cost sensitivity and liquidity requirements. That is a more tractable question.
Subsequent step
Both enrolled in the Retirement Portfolios programme the following quarter. The self-review component was completed individually, then discussed together — an approach they found more productive than their earlier, less structured conversations.
"We came in with different views. We left with a shared vocabulary for the disagreement, which was the first step."
Get in Touch
Contact Details
Professional Standards
Credentials
Member, Hong Kong Institute of Education Professionals (HKIEP)
Programmes reviewed against current academic literature annually
No commercial affiliations or referral arrangements with product providers
Cohort size capped at 12 for effective discussion-based learning
Join a Future Cohort
Places are limited. Send an enquiry to discuss which programme suits your current questions and schedule.
Send an Enquiry