Traditionally, in the absence of much other information, investors have used past performance statistics to get some idea of the likely relative performance of different fund managers. Past performance offers no guarantee of future returns but investors have very little else to go on.

In Britain, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has just set up a website to help investors choose ISAs (tax-based savings accounts) using tables that focus on charges and ignore past performance.

"Take past performance claims with a pinch of salt. Nearly all companies can select a short run of figures which make them look better than their competitors", the site advises.

The FSA says the costs of getting into and out of funds give investors robust, objective, relative indicators.

The new site follows research published by the FSA in August, which found the best-performing fund manager over one period was no more likely to come out on top in the following period - although it found the worst performers are likely to be consistently bad. The research suggested that fund managers ride cycles but few manage to reverse their strategy before the cycle turns.

But many British fund managers are angry with the FSA, arguing its total rejection of performance figures make them look like gamblers and good performances like lucky streaks. The FSA accepts that reliable comparative performance information is hard to produce. It is currently looking at the feasibility of developing a standardised indicator.