This column was submitted by guest contributor Rick Nagel who is the managing partner and CEO of Acorn Capital.
There’s been a lot of attention recently on the rollout of the Invest in Oklahoma initiative, particularly around the selection of an investment advisor. Some of those questions are valid. When public dollars are involved, the process has to be above reproach.
And in this case, it’s clear, despite good intentions, the rollout could have been handled better. Most things, in retrospect, can always find room for improvement.
A more transparent, deliberate process would have built confidence from the start and likely avoided many of the concerns that were raised. That’s not controversial. It’s the standard.
But we need to be equally clear about something else…the program is necessary and the underlying policy is right.
Invest in Oklahoma represents a long-overdue shift in how we think about economic growth.
Oklahoma ranks dead last in the United States in attracting outside investment.
Combined with being 49th in literacy, 48th in health outcomes and the only state in America to lose high-quality and high paid jobs in the last five years, the business community is doing more than just expressing concerns, they are taking action. The legislature, Governor, community leaders, and other elected officials have responded and gone to work in good faith to implement the best programs other states have used to begin solving these challenges.
With respect to investment dollars, too much leaves our state. We don’t invest in ourselves. Our pension funds don’t invest in Oklahoma fund managers or projects. High net worth families send more capital to New York than they deploy here. Our largest pools of capital are managed by firms that are not in Oklahoma.
Instead of continuing to watch all that capital leave the state and opportunity follow it, a new program was pioneered, following the lead of other innovative states, that would finally provide a path out of this death spiral. With Invest in Oklahoma we can now invest in our own companies, our own entrepreneurs, and our own future through a program that would be led by Oklahomans who know our communities, our needs, our strengths and weaknesses, and our people. You can’t attract outside capital if you do not invest in yourself first. This program is designed to take that lead.
That’s a strategy worth getting right.
And that’s exactly why it is important not to let questions about the rollout process derail the broader mission.
It’s also important to be precise about where those questions are directed.
The current conversation risks conflating process concerns with the people involved. The firm selected to help manage these investments did not create the process by which it was chosen. Critiquing the structure of the rollout is appropriate. Assigning fault to participants operating within that structure is not.
In a state our size, there will always be overlap in relationships. That’s a reality of a smaller, interconnected economy. And it’s a good thing! Do we want to keep awarding management contracts to groups that don’t live here and don’t have track records of investing in Oklahoma? The presence of pre-existing relationships, on its own, should not be a disqualifier, and certainly should not become the headline or the measure of success. In fact, I would rather put my trust in somebody that I’ve worked with before than somebody I’ve never met. That’s just common sense.
What should matter is whether the process was handled in a way that builds trust and whether the structure going forward supports the mission.
The reality is this: the board overseeing this initiative is new. The structure is still taking shape. And the decisions being made now will determine whether this effort succeeds over the long term.
That’s where the focus should be.
If anything, this moment is an opportunity to tighten governance, reinforce transparency, and ensure that the process going forward reflects the importance of the mission.
This wasn’t a failure of concept. It was, at worst, a failure in process, and processes can easily be fixed.
What would be a mistake is allowing early missteps in execution to undermine the strategy itself.
Oklahoma has a tendency to second-guess big ideas before they have a chance to work. Meanwhile, other states stay committed, refine their approach, and ultimately reap the benefits.
We don’t need to repeat that pattern here. We need to fix what needs fixing, learn from what could have been done better, and move forward with clarity and purpose.
Because the goal and mission remains the same.
Oklahoma capital, working for Oklahoma companies.
If we stay focused on that, and ensure the structure and governance match the importance of the mission, this initiative still has the potential to be a major win for our state.
Let’s not lose sight of that.
