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

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

Published

on

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

transcript

transcript

Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”

Advertisement
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston

December 17, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Published

on

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

transcript

transcript

Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.

Advertisement
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

By Shawn Paik

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending