Which of the following statements is NOT CORRECT? a. Sunk costs are the costs associated with "the road not taken". They represent the alternative cost of an asset if that asset were not already owned by the firm; therefore, these costs should be included in the capital budgeting analysis. b. Opportunity costs and sunk costs are tricky when analyzing capital budgeting projects. In summary, for a correct capital budgeting analysis, opportunity costs must be included in the analysis while sunk costs should be ignored—the money is gone whether the project is undertaken or not. c. Sunk costs are cash outlays a company has made in the past, and they can't be recovered whether the new project goes forward or not. Thus, you don't include these costs in the project's capital budgeting analysis. d. An opportunity cost represents the best return a company could get on an asset it already owns. It is the cost of losing out on something if you greenlight the project, so you want to include this cost in the capital budgeting analysis. e. While an opportunity cost is not an actual cash outlay, this cost must be added to the project's costs when you calculate its net present value.

This problem has been solved! see the answercompute and interpret altman's z-scoresfollowing is selected financial information for ebay, for its fiscal years 2005 and 2006.(in millions, except per share data) 2006 2005current assets $ 4,970.59 $ 3,183.24current liabilities 2,518.39 1,484.93total assets 13,494.01 11,788.99total liabilities 2,589.38 1,741.00shares outstanding 1,368.51 1,404.18retained earnings 4,538.35 2,819.64stock price per share 30.07 43.22sales 5,969.74 4,552.40earnings before interest and taxes 1,439.77 1,445.18compute and interpret altman z-scores for the company for both years. (do not round until your final answer; then round your answers to two decimal places.)2006 z-score = answer2005 z-score = answerwhich of the following best describes the company's likelihood to go bankrupt given the z-score in 2006 compared to 2007.the z-score in 2006 is half of the 2005 score. both z-scores are well above the score that represents a healthy company.the z-score in 2006 is double the 2005 score. the z-score has increased sharply, which suggests the company has greatly increased the risk of bankruptcy.the z-score in 2006 is half of the 2005 score. the z-score has decreased sharply, which suggests the company is in financial distress.the z-score in 2006 is double the 2005 score. the z-score has increased sharply, which suggests the company has greatly lowered the risk of bankruptcy.