Nope. Not to pick on Larry but this is a good excuse to talk about what correlation means and doesn’t mean. Very often you have two assets that can even be 90% correlated (and stay that way) yet asset A yields +50% and asset B yields -50% returns over a year. https://twitter.com/lawmaster/status/1247480488530493441

2/ one very common real world example of this is levered ETFs. For example, the double short levered real estate ETF in 2008 was close to 100% correlated with the underlying (-1 * real estate ETF), yet lost almost all its value while shorting the real estate ETF was profitable.

3/ this is because correlation is best thought of as the general directional relationship. Correlation ignores magnitude of move differences between the assets and only takes into account differentiation in size of moves within 1 asset. To clarify:

4/ if both asset A and B are $20, and every time A goes up 1%, asset B goes up 5%, and that ratio of 5:1 is consistent, you get a correlation of 100%, even though asset B is producing 5x the return. Wildly different performance, 100% correlation.

5/ you can also get very high correlations with one asset having a “decay.” Using that same example, let’s say asset A also lost $0.20 of value every day on top of whatever else it did with asset B. You’d still have an extremely high correlation, despite asset A falling to 0.