Commodity producing corporations have trillions of dollars in outstanding debt. Thus, the recent fall in commodity prices raised concerns about sustainability and systemic risks. Using a global sample (2003- 2015) we measure how corporate bonds react to the underlying commodity price. On average a 10% change in the commodity moves yields-to-maturity by only 15 basis points. This is just a tenth of the sensitivity of stocks returns. Nonetheless, bond sensitivity to commodities is significantly stronger for smaller, leveraged and less profitable firms. Also for short maturity bonds. The type of commodity price change matters too. Sensitivity to price drops is at least five times stronger than to increases. Transitory price changes matter for shorter maturities and leveraged firms. In contrast, longer maturities react more to permanent commodity variations. When firms use hedging derivatives, bonds are less sensitive to all price variations. Hedging mitigates the amplification of commodity shocks, as in Shiller (2008). In conclusion, while debt finance deteriorated with the commodity bust, it hardly dried-up.

This paper examines the relationship between firm investment ratios and institutional blockholders for a sample of 6300 publicly traded firms in 16 large emerging markets for the 2004–2016 period. Results show that independent, long-term, and local institutional investors boost investment ratios, and this is consistent with the monitoring role and blockholder voice intervention hypotheses. The presence of institutional blockholders, regardless of their monitoring involvement, reduces firm cash flow sensitivity ratios and thus, firms' financial constraints. Minority institutional investors complement the positive effect of blockholder investors. However, the effect on financial constraints decreases as the quality of the country's institutions increases.