Note that a key factor here isn't inflation, per se, but the rate of change in inflation. From an Econ 101 perspective 2% inflation is no different than 20% inflation if things are otherwise steady-state. Stocks are the better bet because in principal they should respond more quickly to changes in the inflation rate. If inflation is steady, bonds in principal are the simpler, cheaper instrument.
I would have thought BND would have fallen a lot harder considering how much higher new bonds are paying but maybe the market is pretty good at pricing bonds based on their associated risk per length of bond time with inflation?
IDK, what do you think?
You would also expect bonds to perform poorly as their prices need to decline to make their yields competitive with those of new bonds issued at higher interest rates. Term loans should outperform since their interest rates are variable, making them safer in a regime of raising/fluctuating interest rates.
Conversely, sometimes US treasuries will outperform if investors are fleeing to a safe haven against potential recision risks. There's always another variable.
That said, stocks don’t tend to perform well either because of expectations over interest rates increasing to combat inflation and an ensuing recession.