The essential difference between a "think global, act global" and a "think global, act local" approach to strategy-making isthat: a. a "think global, act global" approach entails extensive strategy coordination across countries and a "think global, actlocal" approach entails little or no strategy coordination across countries. b. the former aims at implementing the same business model worldwide, whereas the latter aims at implementingcustomized business models to better match local market circumstances. c. the "think global, act local" approach gives local managers more latitude to make minor strategy variations wherenecessary to better satisfy local buyers and to better match local market conditions. d. a "think global, act global" approach involves selling a mostly standardized product worldwide, whereas a "think global, act local" approach entails selling products that are highly differentiated from country to country. e. a "think global, act global" approach involves selling under a single brand name worldwide, whereas a "think global, actlocal" approach entails utilizing multiple brands (typically one for each different country or group of neighboringcountries).

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.