stocks do not provide a hedge against inflation--they are simply too volatile.
And in fact the correlation is negative--higher inflation induces risks to equity investors.
What stocks do provide is a risk premium which if realized allows one to outpace inflation, but that is compensation for risk, not an inflation hedge.
Examples of long periods when stocks underperformed inflation are 66-81, 69-82, 98-08.
The word hedge means to offset risk. Like you are long wheat as a farmer so you hedge the risks by selling wheat in the futures market. One risk is HEDGED by a transaction or investment that offsets the other risk.
Stocks simply don't do that as examples I showed. The best example is that 1973-74 the S&P returned a negative 28% real return. That cannot be a hedge
Stocks provide high expected returns, above the risk free rate (which has been about 0.8 percent above inflation) because of their great risks. And that risk can last for any horizon. Thus it cannot be a hedge. Investing in stocks gives you the HOPE and expectation that you will outperform inflation because of the risk premium, but it is not a hedge. TIPS bought and held with maturity to the investment horizon are the only real hedge. Even tbills can be not a great hedge. From 33-97 they provided negative real returns, even before taxes.
¿Os protegeis de algún modo frente a la inflación? ¿O confiais sencillamente en un portfolio diversificado de acciones y bonos?
Si entendemos que las acciones no ofrecen una protección frente a la inflación, pero que a largo plazo debido a su "premium risk" lo esperable es que batan a la inflación, quizás no haría falta nada más.
¿Tendría sentido buscar esa protección contra la inflación al menos cuando se acerque la jubilación?