(The Epoch Times)—Two Oklahoma officials are concerned that a state retirement system’s overseers may have tailored a proposal request (RFP) to favor an investment firm that allegedly boycotts oil and gas companies.
Oklahoma State Treasurer Todd Russ and Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd are concerned that the RFP gave BlackRock Investments responsibility for 60 percent of the Oklahoma Public Employee Retirement System’s (OPERS) assets—approximately $7 billion— in possible violation of state law.
BlackRock is on a list of companies barred by state law from handling state funds because it boycotts oil and gas companies. The oil industry has been a driver of Oklahoma’s economy for over a century.
State Street, another firm handling state funds, is also on the prohibited list. But it hasn’t drawn quite as much attention as its larger competitor.
This may violate the Oklahoma Energy Discrimination Elimination Act of 2022 (EDEA). The law prohibits state investments from being handled by any firm that boycotts oil and gas producers.
BlackRock representatives did not respond to an email from The Epoch Times. However, in a letter to the Oklahoma Treasurer’s office, BlackRock Senior Managing Director and Vice Chairman Mark McCombe said BlackRock is focused on its responsibility to its clients.
“BlackRock does not boycott energy companies,” Mr. McCombe wrote in the letter.
According to the letter, BlackRock has $319 billion invested in public energy companies worldwide, with $15 billion invested in Oklahoma. More than 90 percent of that is “invested in traditional energies like oil and gas.”
There are indications that the investment firm is separating itself from ESG investing. In recent weeks, BlackRock has stopped using the term. In a report released in August, BlackRock reported backing 7 percent of ESG proposals at company meetings in the 12 months to June, a sharp drop from last year when it supported 22 percent and 2021 when it voted in favor of nearly half.
In the letter, Mr. McCombe pointed out that ESG policies are a reality and that there is a trend of increased government regulation and consumer demand for alternatives to carbon-based energy.
“As fiduciaries, we advise clients on major structural trends that we believe may impact their portfolios. One such trend is the change in government policies, technology, and consumer preferences associated with the transition to a low-carbon economy,” the letter reads. “Our investment decisions are governed strictly by our fiduciary duty to clients, and that duty requires us to prioritize our clients’ financial interests above any commitments or pledges not required by law.”
But Mr. Russ and Ms. Byrd say their concerns go beyond the EDEA law and boycotting oil companies. The pair also questioned the RFP process at the Oklahoma State Pension Commission meeting on Sept. 12. The commission oversees several state pension and retirement funds.
After that meeting, Joseph Fox, OPERS executive director, promised to explain why BlackRock was selected.
Mr. Fox did not return an email from The Epoch Times. However, he did send information to Mr. Russ and Ms. Byrd. In a memo dated Aug. 23—the same day the commission voted to hire BlackRock—Mr. Fox wrote that BlackRock most closely met the requirements set by OPERS for the investment work.
OPERS Claimed Exemption
He wrote that OPERS claimed an exemption under the EDEA law based on its “fiduciary responsibility” to the state employees whose funds are being managed.
“A state governmental entity shall not be subject to any requirement of this act if the state governmental entity determines that such requirement would be inconsistent with its fiduciary responsibility concerning the investment of entity assets or other duties imposed by law relating to the investment of entity assets,” the EDEA exemption reads.
According to the OPERS memo, divesting would cost at least $9.7 million in fees and other costs.
“It is conceivable that the total loss in market value experienced by the plans due to these actions could potentially be multiple times that of the estimated costs stated above,” the OPERS memo reads.
But Mr. Russ said the exemption claimed by OPERS does not apply. He claimed the RFP was written to eliminate most of BlackRock’s competition.
RFP Process ‘Tightened’
Mr. Russ said “rigged” was too strong for the RFP process. But, he said it did appear OPERS officials had one company in mind.
“The RFP within itself wasn’t a problem. They tightened up the RFP to meet the current constituent and investor,” Mr. Russ said.
Ms. Byrd was less diplomatic in her assessment.
“In the auditing world, we do call that practice ‘bid rigging,’” she said.
On Sept. 14, Mr. Russ sent a letter to Mr. Fox and the OPERS Board of Trustees outlining three concerns. Based on those, Mr. Russ wrote, the OPERS board should have selected another firm or sought more applicants.
Mr. Russ sent copies of the letter to the Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, Rep. Charles McCall, Oklahoma Senate President Pro Tempore Sen. Greg Treat, and Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond.
Neither Mr. McCall nor Mr. Treat returned calls seeking comment. Phil Bacharach, a spokesman for Mr. Drummond’s office, said the Attorney General had no comment.
In the letter, Mr. Russ wrote that rather than spread the state investments among different managers to reduce risk; the OPERS board kept more than half of the pension funds under BlackRock.
His letter claims five of the eight funds had low or no switching fees. To determine the costs for the last three would require a complete RFP process, which Mr. Russ claims did not happen.
He wrote that respondents were given only three weeks to present their proposals in this case. Mr. Russ pointed out that previous RFPs allowed up to six weeks for a response. He claimed that OPERS summarily decided to keep BlackRock without fully considering the competing firms.
Finally, he wrote that the decision to retain BlackRock’s services violated OPERS fiduciary duties because of BlackRock’s commitment to ESG principles.
“Companies like BlackRock and State Street have openly made commitments to use all assets under management—including OPERS’ assets—not for the benefit of OPERS, but for their own ideological objectives,” Mr. Russ wrote.
Bill Pan contributed to this report.
Why Bullion Beats Numismatics and Collectible for Your Safe or IRA
Precious metals continue to attract Americans seeking reliable ways to protect their wealth amid inflation, geopolitical risks, and stock market swings. Whether stored in a home safe or held inside a self-directed IRA, physical gold and silver deliver tangible value that paper or digital assets often lack. Yet investors must choose carefully between bullion—pure bars and coins valued mainly for their metal content—and numismatics or collectibles, where rarity, history, and collector demand heavily influence pricing.
Advisor Bullion serves as a dependable source for straightforward, high-quality bullion. The company specializes in physical gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, emphasizing transparent pricing and products that deliver maximum metal content for every dollar spent. This approach makes it ideal for both personal holdings and retirement accounts.
Bullion consists of refined precious metals in standard forms like one-ounce coins (American Gold Eagles, Silver Eagles, Canadian Maple Leafs) or bars. Their value tracks closely to the current spot price of the metal. A typical gold bullion coin trades near the live gold spot price plus a small premium. This structure keeps costs clear and predictable.
Numismatic coins and collectibles add substantial value from factors such as age, rarity, minting errors, or historical significance. A pre-1933 U.S. gold coin or graded proof piece can carry premiums of 30%, 50%, or even 200% above melt value. While this appeals to hobbyists, it creates complexity. Pricing depends on subjective grading, collector trends, and auction results instead of daily spot prices.
For investors focused on wealth preservation and retirement security rather than building a collection, bullion often delivers better results.
Lower Costs and Better Liquidity for Home Storage
When keeping metals in a home safe or private vault, liquidity and efficiency count. Bullion offers clear benefits:
- You acquire more actual gold or silver per dollar invested. Numismatics divert a large share of your money into rarity premiums and massive sales commission, reducing your metal exposure.
- Selling bullion involves tight bid-ask spreads, so you recover nearly full spot value with minimal fees. Collectibles require finding the right buyer and may sell at a discount if demand for that specific item weakens.
- Bullion prices remain transparent and update with global spot markets. You can track gold near current levels or silver accordingly and know exactly where your holdings stand. Numismatic values are priced by the Gold IRA companies with hefty margins applied.
- Standardized coins and bars store efficiently and divide easily for partial sales. Rare coins often need protective slabs and controlled conditions, adding hassle and expense.
- Bullion enjoys worldwide acceptance. A 1-oz Gold Maple Leaf or Silver Eagle sells quickly to dealers anywhere. Niche numismatic pieces may appeal only to limited buyers, slowing liquidation when speed matters.
In times when quick access to value becomes important, bullion’s simplicity stands out.
Stronger Fit for Precious Metals IRAs
Precious metals IRAs continue gaining traction as investors diversify retirement portfolios beyond stocks and bonds. IRS rules permit certain bullion products in self-directed IRAs if they meet purity standards (.995 fine for gold, .999 for silver) and are held by an approved custodian. Eligible items include American Gold and Silver Eagles plus many generic bars and rounds from recognized mints.
Numismatic and most collectible coins generally face heavy scrutiny from custodians due to valuation disputes and elevated markups. These higher premiums mean less actual metal ends up working inside the account.
Bullion avoids these issues. Its value links directly to verifiable spot prices, which simplifies reporting and lowers the risk of regulatory challenges. More of your IRA contribution purchases real metal instead of dealer profits or speculative upside. Over time, owning additional ounces that appreciate with the metal itself can create meaningful outperformance compared with high-premium alternatives that deliver fewer ounces.
Regulatory guidance from the CFTC and state securities offices repeatedly cautions against aggressive sales of expensive numismatics or “semi-numismatic” coins for IRAs. For retirement planning, transparent bullion from established providers reduces risk and aligns better with long-term goals.
How to Get Started with Bullion
Begin by clarifying your goals. Are you protecting savings in a safe, or moving part of a retirement account into a precious metals IRA? Focus on the number of ounces you can acquire at current prices rather than chasing marked-up collectibles.
Diversify sensibly: use gold for core preservation and silver for its blend of industrial and monetary qualities. Mix coins for easier divisibility with bars for lower per-ounce costs on larger buys. Arrange secure storage—whether at home with proper insurance or through professional facilities.
As economic uncertainties linger and faith in conventional assets erodes, bullion continues proving its worth as a dependable store of value. Its direct approach avoids the hype that sometimes surrounds collectible markets and keeps the focus on the metal itself.
For investors prepared to strengthen their portfolios, Advisor Bullion supplies the expertise and selection needed to acquire high-quality bullion efficiently. Whether building personal holdings or integrating metals into an IRA, their emphasis on transparent, investment-grade products helps secure more ounces today that support greater financial security tomorrow. In a complicated financial landscape, bullion’s clarity and reliability make it the smarter foundation for protecting what matters most.