Table 8.

Regression result for high independent director’s vs low independent directors’ firms

VariablesLow independent directorsHigh independent directors
(1)(2)(3)(4)(1)(2)(3)(4)
NUM KAMNUM KAMWORD KAMWORD_KAMNUM KAMNUM KAMWORD KAMWORD KAM
lnProx_KM−0.064** (0.030)−0.050* (0.029)−0.018 (0.028)−0.009 (0.034)
lnProx_Min−0.083** (0.035)−0.072** (0.034)−0.024 (0.033)−0.028 (0.040)
Constant−0.711 (0.847)−0.855 (0.853)4.716*** (0.830)4.568*** (0.835)−0.151 (0.796)−0.202 (0.801)5.238*** (0.961)5.166*** (0.967)
Observation233233233233232232232232
Adjusted R20.2620.2660.2600.2650.1530.1530.1450.147
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 geographic proximity on KAMs disclosures between low- vs high-independent director 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