Table 9.

Regression result for distress vs non-distress firms

VariablesNon-distress firmsDistress firms
(1)(2)(3)(4)(1)(2)(3)(4)
NUM KAMNUM KAMWORD KAMWORD KAMNUM KAMNUM_KAMWORD KAMWORD KAM
lnProx_KM−0.024 (0.027)0.001 (0.032)−0.051* (0.034)−0.078** (0.035)
lnProx_Min−0.023 (0.032)−0.010 (0.038)−0.068* (0.038)−0.096** (0.039)
Constant0.130 (0.789)0.115 (0.798)5.706*** (0.950)5.646*** (0.961)−0.333 (0.947)−0.483 (0.949)4.566*** (0.978)4.357*** (0.979)
Observation242242242242223223223223
Adjusted R20.1300.1290.1030.1030.1420.1460.1330.138
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 distressed vs non-distressed 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