Connect with us

News

The memoirs of a ‘Forrest Gump’ of banking shine light on an era

Published

on

The memoirs of a ‘Forrest Gump’ of banking shine light on an era

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

In a break during a tense 2009 Citigroup board meeting, one of Wall Street’s more influential figures Robert Rubin approached the firm’s outside investment banking adviser, Scott Bok.

Former US Treasury secretary Rubin, at that time a Citi executive, told Bok he knew his father, mistakenly presuming he was the son of Derek Bok, the esteemed scholar and former president of Harvard University. The origins of the banker’s father were far more humble — a Midwestern high school dropout, he supported his family by installing telephone poles. This start, however, did not hinder an eventful four-decade career on Wall Street recounted in Scott Bok’s memoirs Surviving Wall Street: A Tale of Triumph, Tragedy and Timing set to published next week.

Over that run, he raked in hundreds of millions of dollars in stock and pay (he also bought Greenhill shares at times), eventually accumulating enough stature to become the chair of trustees of an Ivy League university as well as Manhattan’s American Museum of Natural History. 

Advertisement

Relative to the biggest names on Wall Street, Bok makes perhaps a B-list grandee — something that his autobiography candidly acknowledges. Bok told me he likened his professional arc to that of Forrest Gump — maybe not the most important guy in the room but one with at least a front-row seat at several historic moments, propelling him to a position of influence outside Wall Street.

While the book has been in the works since the pandemic, it raises some questions that seem very relevant in 2025 — including whether all the social, political, and cultural might that financiers have accrued in a golden age of US finance has ultimately been a good thing for the rest of America, including people like Bok’s own father. And then whether this era will be shattered by an inward-looking Trump presidency.

I first met Bok 20 years ago when I applied for a job at Greenhill & Co, the merger advisory boutique founded a decade earlier by Robert Greenhill, a pioneering investment banker. Greenhill spent decades at Morgan Stanley and founded his eponymous firm after a stint at Smith Barney, where he had been fired in the mid-1990s by Sandy Weill and replaced by his deputy Jamie Dimon. Greenhill recruited Bok, then in his late 30s and a veteran of corporate law and Morgan Stanley, to lead deals and then increasingly to run the start-up Greenhill & Co.

The firm thrived straightaway both in New York and London, finding that chief executives liked working with smaller firms.

When I met Bok for that interview in 2005, Greenhill had just gone public and a few years later hit a $2bn market capitalisation. It was a heady time, coming ahead of the extended boom in dealmaking around the world just as hedge funds and private equity were proliferating. Innumerable personal fortunes were minted as stock markets, with only a few blips, kept soaring.

Advertisement

The Greenhill executive team repeatedly took money off the table in share sales and dividend proceeds. The Greenhill firm, however, did not fare so well. Several formidable competitor firms formed and Bok failed to keep up. Once-flattering media attention dried up as well. Bok chronicles his various minor clashes with journalists, including me. In 2023, the Japanese bank Mizuho acquired Greenhill for $550mn, much in assumed debt. The per share purchase price of $15 was a far cry from the $90 the firm traded at in the late 2000s.

The Greenhill sale and its lessons about the fragility of financial institutions was intended to be the coda of Bok’s book. But events intervened and provided a gripping conclusion. Bok was drawn into a very public spotlight because of his role as chair of the trustees at the University of Pennsylvania amid the college protests that followed the Hamas terror attack in Israel on October 7, 2023. Bok backed the school’s then president and the institution’s handling of campus affairs though both ultimately resigned under pressure.

Bok offers his first detailed version of those events here — well worth a read and reflection. He also observes that the fracas ultimately degenerated into a fight between the differing agendas of a group of millionaire and billionaire benefactors, even as the university remained an institution with a wide range of students, graduates and research.

Bok, like many among the Wall Street ruling class, owes much of his fortune to riding a wave of money-spinning in the US over the past 40 years. At the end of a top run, Bok has the humility to acknowledge this good luck. A series of high-flying careers are set to wrap up in coming years and I’m curious to see which other Masters of the Universe will be as introspective.

sujeet.indap@ft.com

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Published

on

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks at the Reagan Library on Sept. 9, 2025, in Simi Valley, Calif. Barrett discussed and signed copies of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.

Mario Tama/Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Even as the Supreme Court was handing down one legal thunderbolt after another last week, the justices were quietly releasing their annual financial reports. Justice Samuel Alito was the only sitting justice to request an extension, which he has done for 15 years. The disclosures do not give a complete account of the justices’ total income and wealth, but they give insights into their concertgoing, guest professorships and even their involvement in youth sports.

In addition to their salaries, much of the justices’ reported income came from their book deals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the pack earning more than $1.1 million last year for a total of roughly $4 million since her memoir, Lovely One, was published in 2024.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy also reported income from published books. Earnings from their books ranged from $849,000 for Barrett, to $300,000 for Gorsuch and $88,000 for Sotomayor, whose books include her 2013 autobiography and five children’s books. Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously earned $1.5 million for his 2007 memoir, listed no publisher payments last year, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of 13 co-authors of a 2016 legal treatise, also received no payments last year. Kavanaugh is said to be working on a memoir but he listed no payments for the anticipated book. Alito does have a book coming out in the fall, but with his financial report still outstanding, there is no data on how much he was paid for the work in 2025.

Advertisement

The only two sitting justices who have not written books are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan.

Many justices also earned income from teaching at law schools. Roberts reported income from New England Law, located in Boston, and Gorsuch reported teaching income from George Mason University in Virginia. Thomas taught classes at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and Barrett and Kavanaugh taught at Notre Dame Law School. Barrett graduated from the school and began teaching there 23 years ago; Kavanaugh has family connections to Notre Dame.

Continue Reading

News

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

Published

on

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

At least two structural columns buckled and failed in a 37-story office tower in Midtown Manhattan on Tuesday, prompting evacuations of nearby streets and buildings. While city officials asserted that the tower was in no danger of collapsing completely, outside engineers said further failures in the structure could not be ruled out.

A pair of columns that failed completely were part of the tower’s existing structure. A New York Times review of images and videos from inside the building has found that several floors were added atop these columns.

Advertisement

City officials said in a news conference on Tuesday that the building was continuing to move, while they simultaneously assured the city that the building would not suffer “total collapse.” “The way this building is constructed, it’s a steel-frame building,” John Esposito, a chief in the Fire Department in New York, said at the afternoon news conference. “So, it would not be a total collapse. It would be more of a localized collapse.” Still, he said, “that remains our concern, that it’s moved.”

Advertisement

Engineers said that the movement itself was cause for concern. In a properly designed steel building, they said, loads should redistribute quickly to surviving structural supports if columns failed.

Joe DiPompeo, a former president of the Structural Engineering Institute at the American Society of Civil Engineers, said that if the structure had been overloaded, he would expect any movement “to happen very quickly,” rather than gradually.

“Generally when a column buckles, it’s a sudden failure,” Mr. DiPompeo said. He said that a full collapse remained unlikely given the redundancies built into the building codes.

Advertisement

Engineers often refer to the most dangerous possibility as a progressive collapse, a process in which structures near the initial failure become overstressed and also fail, potentially bringing down the building if the sequence continues. While unlikely, it cannot be ruled out, Mr. DiPompeo said.

Footage recorded from inside the building shows at least two structural columns appear to have failed completely, Mr. DiPompeo said. Other nonstructural, interior walls — or at least the metal “studs” that were in place to hold them up — also appear to have deformed.

Advertisement

“The only way that really happens is if the floor above them dropped. It looks like the floor above could have dropped a foot or two, which is obviously not a good situation,” Mr. DiPompeo said.

@fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Advertisement

Image from @fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Image from @Bogs4NY via X

Advertisement

The 37-story building is in the process of being converted from office space into residential units. Four new floors and a large vertical portion were added onto the existing building in recent months. The vertical portion consists of a stack of over a dozen new floors cantilevered out over the existing building below.

Engineers said that there was nothing inherently wrong with adding residential floors or the cantilevered section above the columns that failed, as long as the original structure and the modifications had properly accounted for the added weight and wind loads.

“The cantilever alone doesn’t change anything,” Mr. DiPompeo said, but it does put additional load on the columns underneath — a factor that should have been reflected in the design.

Advertisement

Nathan Berman, managing principal and founder of MetroLoft, the developer overseeing the conversion, said on Tuesday that “this incident is nothing more than a typical construction mishap.”

He said two columns near the northwest corner of the tower had bent under the weight of additions to the building above, most likely because those columns had not been properly reinforced, though he said an investigation would determine the cause. The rest of the columns, he said, “picked up the weight.” He estimated the affected floors above the failed columns had sagged by a maximum of four inches.

Advertisement

Mr. Berman said that he expected the problems to be fixed and the project to be completed with, at most, a slight delay.

On Tuesday evening, installation of temporary shoring was set to begin shortly, in order to help stabilize the 20th and 21st floors of the building.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

Published

on

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

The Justice Department sent letters warning election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that they could face criminal prosecution over noncitizen voting, a spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed Tuesday.

The letters, signed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads up the department’s Civil Rights Division, give states five days to explain how they will comply with federal voter eligibility laws and how they will maintain “clean voter lists.”

Advertisement

“The Department sent these letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asking for voluntary compliance in a timely manner with their obligations under federal law to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.

Noncitizen voting in federal elections is extremely rare, but Trump and his administration have falsely portrayed it as a widespread issue.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson are among those who said they received the letters from the Justice Department.

The letters say state election officers “could be criminally prosecuted for aiding and abetting” noncitizen voting. They further specify that any election officer who knowingly retains noncitizens on a statewide voting registration list or who facilitates noncitizens’ receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability.

“An intentional act that is aimed at diluting the votes of citizens could also constitute a violation” of federal law, the letters said.

Advertisement

Henderson wrote on social media that the threats constitute “truly bizarre behavior.”

“Got another love letter this morning from the DOJ sprinkled throughout with threats of criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “I’m sure I’m not the only chief election officer of a state who is being targeted for following state and federal laws by resisting DOJ’s demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts.”

The letters are the latest move in the Justice Department’s campaign to assert more federal control over state elections.

While some states have complied with the administration’s demands that they hand over voter roll data, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for resisting. So far, 11 different federal courts have dismissed the Justice Department’s efforts to seize voter rolls.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending