which ONE answer correctly explains why shouldnt a business make an employee stock ownership plan its main retirement plan for employees

it is too expensive for a company with low salary budget
it wont cover the business's contractors and consultants
it doesn't deliver equal pay for comparable worth
it is risky to have all one investments be in a single company

It is risky to have all investments in a single company.

The correct answer is: It is risky to have all investments concentrated in a single company.

While an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) can have some benefits, it shouldn't be the main retirement plan for employees because it presents a significant risk. Relying solely on an ESOP for retirement income means that employees have all their investments tied to a single company. If the company performs poorly or fails, employees could lose a substantial portion or even all of their retirement savings. Diversification is a fundamental principle of successful investing, and putting all eggs in one basket can be detrimental.

Additionally, it is essential for employees to have retirement plans that cater to their varying needs and circumstances. While an ESOP may benefit some employees, it may not be suitable or accessible for all. Contractors, consultants, and part-time employees may not be eligible for participation in an ESOP, which could lead to unequal treatment among different employee groups.

Moreover, depending solely on an ESOP can limit employees' ability to receive comparable pay for equivalent job worth. The value and growth potential of company stock may not align with the market value of an employee's work, which can result in a lack of equality in compensation.

Finally, implementing and maintaining an ESOP can also be expensive for a company with a lower salary budget. Since the plan may require regular valuations, administrative costs, and possibly buying back shares from retirees, it can strain a company's financial resources, limiting its ability to invest in other employee benefit programs or business initiatives.

The correct answer is: "It is risky to have all one's investments be in a single company."

To arrive at this answer, we need to consider the potential drawbacks of making an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) the main retirement plan for employees. Here's why each of the other options is not the correct answer:

1. "It is too expensive for a company with a low salary budget":
While this can be a valid concern, it does not fully explain why an ESOP shouldn't be the main retirement plan. Other retirement plans, such as 401(k)s or pensions, may also be expensive for businesses with low salary budgets. Therefore, this answer is not the best choice.

2. "It won't cover the business's contractors and consultants":
Although this answer highlights a potential drawback of an ESOP, it does not explain why it shouldn't be the main retirement plan for employees. Also, not all businesses might have contractors or consultants, so this reason may not be applicable to every situation.

3. "It doesn't deliver equal pay for comparable worth":
While pay equity is a crucial issue, it is not directly linked to the question of whether an ESOP should be the primary retirement plan for employees. This answer addresses the issue of fair compensation but doesn't explain the risk or other concerns regarding a single retirement plan.

4. "It is risky to have all one's investments be in a single company":
This is the correct answer. By relying solely on an ESOP as the primary retirement plan, employees have all their retirement investments tied to a single company. If the company struggles financially or fails, employees could lose both their jobs and retirement savings simultaneously. Diversifying investment portfolios is generally considered a safer strategy, spreading risk across different assets and companies.

In summary, while each of the other options may highlight potential issues with an ESOP, only the answer "It is risky to have all one's investments be in a single company" explains why an ESOP shouldn't be the main retirement plan for employees.