How do I hedge properly against inflation and other currency risks?
I apply what you term 'money' to the word 'commodity'. And I agree with littleadv, you are just selling us your perspective on (such things as) precious metals.  What I want you to think about is these truths: When used as currency gold just has two values: utility value and currency value. I hold it is better to separate the two.  There is not enough gold in the earth to represent the value in aggregate economies of the world. Trying to go back to the gold standard would only induce an unimaginable hyperinflation in gold.  Recent years shows that gold does not retain value. See the linked chart.
If you want a concrete investment tip, precious metals (e.g. gold, silver) are on a pretty good run these days, personally I still think they have ways to go as there are just too many problems with modern monetary policy of an almost existential nature, and gold and silver are better stores of value than fiat money. Silver is particularly hot right now, but keep in mind that the increased volatility means increased risk. If the Fed keeps its foot on the pedals of the dollar printing press and we get QE3 this summer, that will most likely mean more people piling into the PMs to hedge against inflation. If the Fed starts to tighten it's policy then that's probably bad news for both equities and bonds and so PMs could be seen as a safe haven investment. These are the main reasons why PMs take up a good portion of my portfolio and will continue to do so untill I see how the global economy plays out over the next couple of years. I will just try to come up with a totally made up example, that should explain the dynamics of the hedge. Consider this (completely made up) relationship between USD, EUR and Gold: Now lets say you are a european wanting to by 20 grams of Gold with EUR. Equally lets say some american by 20 grams of Gold with USD. Their investment will have the following values: See how the europeans return is -15.0% while the american only has a -9.4% return? Now lets consider that the european are aware that his currency may be against him with this investment, so he decides to hedge his currency. He now enters a currency-swap contract with another person who has the opposite view, locking in his EUR/USD at t2 to be the same as at t0. He now goes ahead and buys gold in USD, knowing that he needs to convert it to EUR in the end - but he has fixed his interestrate, so that doesn't worry him. Now let's take a look at the investment: See how the european now suddenly has the same return as the American of -9.4% instead of -15.0% ? It is hard in real life to create a perfect hedge, therefore you will most often see that the are not totally the same, as per Victors answer - but they do come rather close. "I was in a similar situation, and used FX trading to hedge against currency fluctuations. I bought the ""new"" currency when the PPP implied valuation of my ""old"" currency was high, and was able to protect quite a bit of purchasing power that I would have lost without the hedge. Unfortunately you get taxed for the ""gain"" you made, but still helpful.   In terms of housing market, you could look into a Ireland REIT index, but it may not correlate well with the actual house prices you are looking for." "My question boiled down: Do stock mutual funds behave more like   treasury bonds or commodities? When I think about it, it seems that   they should respond the devaluation like a commodity. I own a quantity   of company shares (not tied to a currency), and let's assume that the   company only holds immune assets. Does the real value of my stock   ownership go down? Why? On December 20, 1994, newly inaugurated President Ernesto Zedillo   announced the Mexican central bank's devaluation of the peso between   13% and 15%.  Devaluing the peso after previous promises not to do so   led investors to be skeptical of policymakers and fearful of   additional devaluations. Investors flocked to foreign investments and   placed even higher risk premia on domestic assets. This increase in   risk premia placed additional upward market pressure on Mexican   interest rates as well as downward market pressure on the Mexican   peso.  Foreign investors anticipating further currency devaluations   began rapidly withdrawing capital from Mexican investments and selling   off shares of stock as the Mexican Stock Exchange plummeted. To   discourage such capital flight, particularly from debt instruments,   the Mexican central bank raised interest rates, but higher borrowing   costs ultimately hindered economic growth prospects. The question is how would they pull this off if it's a floatable currency.  For instance, the US government devalued the US Dollar against gold in the 30s, moving one ounce of gold from $20 to $35.   The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing   individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in   United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The   act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce   to $35. But now, the US Dollar is not backed by anything, so how do they devalue it now (outside of intentionally inflating it)?  The Hong Kong Dollar, since it is fixed to the US Dollar, could be devalued relative to the Dollar, going from 7.75 to 9.75 or something similar, so it depends on the currency. As for the final part, ""does the real value of my stock ownership go down"" the answer is yes if the stock ownership is in the currency devalued, though it may rise over the longer term if investors think that the value of the company will rise relative to devaluation and if they trust the market (remember a devaluation can scare investors, even if a company has value). Sorry that there's too much ""it depends"" in the answer; there are many variables at stake for this.  The best answer is to say, ""Look at history and what happened"" and you might see a pattern emerge; what I see is a lot of uncertainty in past devaluations that cause panics." Financial advisers like to ask lots of questions and get nitty-gritty about investment objectives, but for the most part this is not well-founded in financial theory.  Investment objectives really boils down to one big question and an addendum.  The big question is how much risk you are willing to tolerate.  This determines your expected return and most characteristics of your portfolio. The addendum is what assets you already have (background risk).  Your portfolio should contain things that hedge that risk and not load up on it.  If you expect to have a fixed income, some extra inflation protection is warranted.  If you have a lot of real estate investing, your portfolio should avoid real estate.  If you work for Google, you should avoid it in your portfolio or perhaps even short it. Given risk tolerance and background risk, financial theory suggests that there is a single best portfolio for you, which is diversified across all available assets in a market-cap-weighted fashion. I am a bit at a loss as to how you can read the same book, that inspired Warren Buffet, and take away that trading 600 contracts per month is a way to prosperity.  As a fellow engineer I can say with assurance this speculation scheme is doomed to failure.  Crossing out the word gamble was a mistake.   Instead you should focus on two things.  The first is your core business, which is signal processing.  Work and strive to be the best you can.  Seek out opportunities to increase your income while keeping your costs low.  As an engineer you have an opportunity to earn an above average salary with very low costs. Second would be to warehouse some of those earning and let others who are good at other things work for you.  You may want to read the Jack Bogle books and seek an asset allocation model.  I tend to be more aggressive then he would suggest, but that is a matter of preference.    You don't really have the time, when you focus on your core business, to manage 6 trades a month let alone 600.  Put your contributions on auto pilot and a surprisingly short time you will have a pile of cash. "One common rule of thumb: you can probably get 4% or better returns on your investments ('""typical market rate of return is 8%, derate to allow for inflation and off years). Figure out what kind of income you will want in retirement and divide by 0.04 to get the savings you need to accumulate to support that.   This doesn't allow for the fact that your needs are also going to increase with inflation; you can make a guess at that and use an inflated needs estimate.  Not sophisticated,  not precise, but it's a quick and dirty ballpark estimate. And sometimes it's surprisingly close to what a proper model would say." "Even if the price of your home did match inflation or better — and that's a question I'll let the other answers address — I propose that owning a home, by itself, is not a sufficient hedge against inflation. Consider: Inflation will inflate your living expenses. If you're lucky, they'll inflate at the average. If you're unlucky, a change in your spending patterns (perhaps age-related) could result in your expenses rising faster than inflation. (Look at the sub-indexes of the CPI.) Without income also rising with inflation (or better), how will you cope with rising living expenses? Each passing year, advancing living expenses risk eclipsing a static income. Your home is an illiquid asset. Generally speaking, it neither generates income for you, nor can you sell only a portion. At best, owning your principal residence helps you avoid a rent expense and inflation in rents — but rent is only one of many living expenses. Some consider a reverse-mortgage an option to tap home equity, but it has a high cost. In other words: If you don't want to be forced to liquidate [sell] your home, you'll also need to look at ways to ensure your income sources rise with inflation. i.e. look at your cash flow, not just your net worth. Hence: investing in housing, as in your own principal residence, is not an adequate hedge against inflation. If you owned additional properties to generate rental income, and you retained pricing power so you could increase the rent charged at least in line with inflation, your situation would be somewhat improved — except you would, perhaps, be adopting another problem: Too high a concentration in a single asset class. Consequently, I would look at ways other than housing to hedge against inflation. Consider other kinds of investments. ""Safe as houses"" may be a cliché, but it is no guarantee."