Flight to quality? Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance?
In 1987 it was actually the opposite that occurred. The 'hot stocks' that had plummeted in value by up to 90+% (search "Tasmanian Second Board" to get an idea) experienced seller no buyer. Some did not trade for over two years - meanwhile badly performed fund managers who had promised the opposite (and been rewarded by the wholesale consultants for their strategies of going in every float possible for as much as they could get) saw clients sack them and the replacement fund managers (us - given about 2/3rds of all sacked managers' funds through to 1990) would not take 'in specie' transfers for companies that were worthless but still valued at cost in many instances.
So the good stocks were often sold as they were partially liquid. At the same time, funds that had been as high as 85% in equities reduced to the 60% range -and again the only way they could was by selling what they could sell.
Kudos to Holmes a Court - we exercised a (what had been) way-out-of-the-money put he sold us at less than half its true value (his way of gaining leverage over the BHP board in that he claimed exposure to BHP at face value not the delta of the option).
We exercised the put on the morning of October 20 and a bank cheque for 9 figures duly arrived 3 days later for 70% of our BHP holding. Unlike several VERY large "Pillars" who defaulted on their SFE margin calls on October 20.
Whilst the description "past performance..." is widely used as a disclaimer - it is not always true. For example AMP under-performed us over every rolling (taken a monthly rests) for over 15 years. National Mutual was not much better, Colonial Mutual had an 8 year run (of 3 yrly performance) under us.
Process is very important but having the right people to run the process is crucial and that IMHO is what you need to watch. For example, a number of our group subsequently left and started up their own businesses which more than 20 years on continue to outperform whereas the 'politicians' left behind whilst paying themselves mega bonuses ran the business into the ground so that by 1995 its history of out-performing ended and pretty much since then it has under-performed. Getting rid of the person who as one of their 20+ "hats" did the internal attribution analysis and had the hide to report when one director disobeyed an instruction to cut $150m from an Asian market and actually poured another $80m into it (which subsequently dropped close to 20%), another director had 'traded' the Aussie against orders and lost close to $70m - saw the role abandoned. And the performance headed south ever since.
BTW that 'sacrificial lamb' had been solely responsible for just under $1bn of funds under mgmt growth (as none of the hierarchy wanted anything to do with funds that could never outperform the balanced fund) whilst the balanced funds had dropped $300m prior to October 20 due to redemptions...
Oddly enough, those funds DID outperform the balanced (higher risk) funds - which did not make him at all popular as it was.