Abstract:Abstract Manuscript Type Empirical Research Question/Issue We combine agency and institutional theory to explain the division of equity shares between the foreign (majority) and local (minority) partners within foreign affiliates. We posit that once the decision to invest is made, the ownership structure is arranged so as to generate appropriate incentives to local partners, taking into account both the institutional environment and the firm‐specific difficulty in monitoring. Research Findings/Insights Using a large firm‐level dataset for the period 2003–2011 from 16 Central and Eastern European countries and applying selectivity corrected estimates, we find that both weaker host country institutions and higher share of intangible assets in total assets in the firm imply higher minority equity share of local partners. The findings hold when controlling for host country effects and when the attributes of the institutional environment are instrumented. Theoretical/Academic Implications The classic view is that weak institutions lead to concentrated ownership, yet it leaves the level of minority equity shares unexplained. Our contribution uses a firm‐level perspective combined with national‐level variation in the institutional environment, and applies agency theory to explain the minority local partner share in foreign affiliates. In particular, we posit that the information asymmetry and monitoring problem in firms are exacerbated by weak host country institutions, but also by the higher share of intangible assets in total assets. Practitioner/Policy Implications Assessing investment opportunities abroad, foreign firms need to pay attention not only to features directly related to corporate governance (e.g., bankruptcy codes) but also to the broad institutional environment. In weak institutional environments, foreign parent firms need to create strong incentives for local partners by offering them significant minority shares in equity. The same recommendation applies to firms with higher shares of intangible assets in total assets.

Institutional ownership and liquidity commonality: evidence from Australia

Does Control-Ownership Divergence Impair Market Liquidity in an Emerging Market? Evidence from China

Disproportional Ownership Structure and Stock Market Liquidity in China

Are Foreign Institutions More or Less Informed? Evidence from China's Stock Markets

Foreign Investor Heterogeneity and Stock Liquidity Around the World

Explaining Country and Cross‐border Liquidity Commonality in International Equity Markets

Liquidity, Analysts, and Institutional Ownership

Climate Change Exposure and Stock Liquidity Commonality: International Evidence

Foreign institutional investors and stock return comovement

Investor Heterogeneity and Commonality in Stock Return and Liquidity

Commonality In Liquidity In Shanghai Stock Exchange

Commonality in Liquidity in Emerging Markets: Evidence from the Chinese Stock Market

Stock price synchronicity and stock liquidity: International evidence

Liquidity Effects of Institutional Investment Horizons

Foreign ownership and stock liquidity uncertainty

Common Institutional Blockholders and Reporting Practices: Evidence from Accounting Comparability

Does common institutional ownership restrain corporate financialization?

Foreign institutional ownership and corporate labor investment

The Value Impact of Stock Liquidity: an International Evidence

Research on Difference and Commonality of Liquidity Between Different Industries Stocks

Institutions and Equity Structure of Foreign Affiliates