THERE are numerous studies that look at whether investment managers can consistently provide above-average performance. After all, those are the managers you want looking after your money.

Most studies show that consistent outperformance over successive years is very difficult to achieve, particularly in developed markets where the accessibility of information levels the playing field.

This could stem from a number of reasons. Perhaps the outperformance was more luck than skill in the first place, perhaps the market environment changed and that turned a successful strategy into one unsuited to the market ecology; or perhaps managers just becomes less interested as they make more money.

However one can better make the case for using active managers in the less efficient emerging markets, where the scope for expert knowledge to influence returns is greater.

The implication of this is that an intelligent blend of active and passive managers should provide the most risk-efficient net returns. But is this right?

In a sense this is somewhat heretical: unusually (we believe uniquely) we actually ask clients if they believe that the skills of the investment industry are worth paying for – not a question often posed in professional services.

And there is no doubt that opinions are strongly divided on active management. It is not our role to force our opinions on clients: there are many ways to manage money, and it is important to be flexible and construct portfolios for clients with which they are emotionally comfortable, rather than to push dogmatic perspectives on them ... particularly when these are substantially open to question.

It is much better to give clients an investment portfolio they are comfortable with – this will help them to reduce behavioural biases and to make better investment decisions through the cycle.

For example, if I have a low belief in skill then paying for active management may make me particularly stressed in bad markets, when I feel the premium can be least afforded. On the other hand, if I am a high belief in skill investor, I may feel that it is only by paying for active management that I can protect myself from the markets to some degree.

Either way, the more comfortable I am with my portfolio, the more I’ll be able to stick with it through bad times.

Clearly, talking to low belief in skill investors about a blended active and passive approach can present some challenges. They are more likely to view managers as a source of underperformance rather than a source of outperformance. For those who are believers, of course, the effectiveness of manager selection and due diligence becomes paramount.

Understanding your client’s attitudes will help build a portfolio that more appropriately reflects the costs that the client is prepared to pay.

Crucially this builds a transparent relationship that both client and adviser should appreciate over the long term through both positive and less rewarding times.

:: Andrew Miller is regional office head of Barclays Wealth in Newcastle