I probably wrote this on IHB before but I'll be happy to say it again...
The typical argument for actively managed funds is there is the possibility a fund manager can beat the benchmark, but in reality, they're all about the same. So with appreciation being the same more or less, the advantage goes to the asset with lower "property taxes." You keep more of your money instead of paying it to the fund manager (or tax collector in our hypothetical example. So instead of conventional actively managed mutual funds, consider the exchange traded funds (ETFs). There are dozens of low cost ETFs that track various benchmarks, like the Nasdaq 100 (QQQQ) or S&P;500 (SPY) or Biotech (BBH), etc. There are also ETFs for practically every investment theme under the sun like real estate and international indexes (there's your exposure to shrimp paste). You can buy them or short them, although as a long-term investor you'd probably just go long; shorting is usually for market-timers, something that many people think they are good at but few if any succeed.
The advantage is that conventional mutual funds have high expense ratios around 1% to 2%, while ETFs have a low expense ratio, usually under 0.5% of net asset value, and often under 0.1%, for example the QQQQs last time I checked have an expense ratio around 0.08%. To put in real estate terms, imagine owning a typical $500,000 condo in middle class Tustin with "conventional" property taxes of 1% (if you're lucky) or 2% (if you're in newer locations with Mello Roos). You'd be paying $5,000 to $10,000 a year to hold that asset. But what if you could own an $500,000 condo in middle class Irvine with "ETF-like" property taxes of 0.1%, meaning you'd only pay $500/year.
You obviously can't elect ETF property taxes in the housing market, but you certainly can elect ETF expenses in the financial markets.