Egan-Jones - 1792 Exchange

Rating Overview

Egan-Jones is Lower Risk.

Egan-Jones is Lower Risk. The company does not yield to political activism in shaping corporate governance, preventing initiatives that potentially alienate consumers, divide employees, and harm shareholders. The company implements race and identity-based policies that replace merit, excellence, and integrity with preferential treatment and outcomes. Overall, Egan-Jones does not embrace corporate initiatives that redirect its central focus from business goals to partisan policies and divisive issues. This approach protects free exercise, free speech, and free enterprise.

Rating Criteria

Corporate Weaponization Risk Levels
Criteria	Risk Level
Cancellations	Lower Risk
Discriminatory Philanthropy	No Data
Employment Protection	High Risk

Corporate Weaponization ⓘ

Corporate Governance and Public Policy Risk Levels
Criteria	Risk Level
Advocacy Bias	Lower Risk
Funding	Lower Risk
Political Actions	No Data

Corporate Governance and Public Policy ⓘ

Rating Criteria Detail

Criteria Risk Level Rationale

Corporate Weaponization

Criteria:

Has canceled customers, suppliers, or vendors due to their political views or religious beliefs OR corporately boycotts, divests, or sanctions regions, people groups, or industries.

Risk Level:

Lower

Rationale:

Egan-Jones has not publicly canceled customers, suppliers, or vendors based on political views or religious beliefs (1).

Criteria:

Charitable giving (including employee matching programs) policies or practices discriminate against charitable organizations based on views or religious beliefs.

Risk Level:

N/A

Rationale:

Egan-Jones does not publish charitable giving guidelines (1).

Criteria:

Employment policies fail to protect against viewpoint or other discrimination and/or are ideological in nature.

Risk Level:

High

Rationale:

Egan-Jones appears to prioritize diversity over merit in its proxy voting recommendations on leadership composition. From its 2025 Wealth-Focused Policy Overview: “We generally recommend AGAINST voting for decreased director diversity because according to our policy, a diversified board would encourage good governance and enhance shareholder value. Bringing together a diverse range of skills and experience is necessary in building a constructive and challenging board” (1). The company appears to prioritize diversity over merit in its proxy voting recommendations for DEI efforts. From its 2025 Wealth-Focused Policy Overview: “We generally recommend a vote AGAINST rescinding the racial equity audit because, according to our policy, the proposed rescinding of the racial audit undermines efforts to assess the impacts of the Company’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. Racial audits are essential in identifying and addressing disparities, and reversing this initiative would limit shareholders’ ability to evaluate the materiality and effectiveness of the Company’s DEI efforts” (2). The company does not publish a nondiscrimination policy (3).