In an discussion we were confronted with a very special opinion about correlation in respect of financial assets.
The widely used correlation coefficient is used here to give an idea about how different assets were behaving in the past.
So one came up with the following interpretation:
Correlation coefficient --> Percentage of times the two assets behave in the same way:
+1.00 --> 100%
+0.99 --> 90%
+0.93 --> 80%
+0.79 --> 70%
+0.49 --> 60%
+0.00 --> 50%
-0.49 --> 40%
-0.79 --> 30%
-0.93 --> 20%
-0.99 --> 10%
-1.00 --> 0%
Which, in my opinion, is plain wrong. As far as I remember, an correlation of 0.00 has the meaning "One cannot tell how Asset b will behave in respect of the development of Asset a". Especially the probabilty of "Asset b will not do any significant move" is missing in a 50% chance.
What is the meaning of a "0.00" correlation? How can negative correlation coefficients be interpreted? Is an percentage of times a good way of doing that?
edit:
He used the vectors
a b
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 5
8 4
9 3
10 2
11 1
To calculate those values in excel, leveraging the correl() function.
I have reproduced what your friend has done. You are right that it is plain wrong. In the image I have given a counterexample of the choice of b values for 50% correct scenario and have illustrated to you that that correlation is not 0 depending on the choice of the values that your b takes for those that do not move the same way. To be polite, the calculation of percentages are utterly wrong and depend on the choice of values b takes to relate that percentage to correlation. Go back to your friend and show him the counterexample. Good luck @Graham Kemp has given you the right explanation