Table 5.

Regression result of large vs small firms (H2)

VariablesSmall firmsLarge firms
(1)(2)(3)(4)(1)(2)(3)(4)
Num KAMNum KAMWord KAMWord KAMNum KAMNum KAMWord KAMWord KAM
lnProx_KM−0.085*** (0.027)−0.092*** (0.034)−0.001 (0.030)0.032 (0.031)
lnProx_Min−0.101*** (0.030)−0.116*** (0.037)0.010 (0.038)0.040 (0.039)
Constant0.137 (1.288)0.129 (1.282)4.842*** (1.590)4.847*** (1.581)−0.951 (1.058)−0.899 (1.065)5.833*** (1.088)5.882*** (1.096)
Observation233233233233232232232232
Adjusted R20.1000.1070.0780.0880.2510.2510.2030.203
ControlsYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Year FEYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Industry FEYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
Prob > F0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
Note(s):

This table reports the cross-sectional results showing the impact of auditor−client geograp-hic proximity on KAMs disclosures between large vs small firms. Variable definitions are provided in Table 2. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.10. Standard errors are reported in parentheses

Source(s): Authors’ own calculations

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal