What has Blackstone (NYSE: BX) been doing with all those theme parks it's been buying? Well, the answer is becoming a bit clearer now. The private equity firm is getting ready to take theme park operator Merlin Entertainments public early next year.

Several investment banks have already been called to advise on the transaction, including Citigroup (NYSE: C), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Deutsche Bank (NYSE: DB), UBS (NYSE: UBS), and Nomura (NYSE: NMR). If all goes as planned, the deal could be good for $3.33 billion.

Technician Leo Fasciocco, who focuses on stocks breaking out of resistance zones, is banking on JPMorgan (NYSE: JPM), as a breakout buy on its rise over $39. Here's the latest from Ticker Tape Digest.

"JPM is one of the dominant financial firms. It has 30 million consumer customers and the world's most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients.

"Recent tape action indicates good institutional buying interest. JPM's long-term chart shows the stock making a bottom around 15 in March. It has since rallied and double in price.

Banking crisis? Well, banks continue to post profits. Look at Barclays PLC (NYSE: BCS), which today reported a $3.15 billion profit for the first half of 2009.

Why the growth? Interestingly enough, Barclays got a big boost from its investment banking division (which is focused on mergers & acquisitions, public offerings and capital raises). Keep in mind that the company purchased the U.S. operations of Lehman Brothers.

And the strength is no fluke. Other major banks -- such as Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Credit Suisse (NYSE: CS) and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) -- also posted strong results with investment banking.

Since early 2007, it's been rough for the shareholders of Cowen Group Inc (NASDAQ: COWN), a mid-tier investment bank. The company's stock price has gone from $20 to low of $3.54.

But lately, Cowen's stock price has perked up, primarily because of takeover overtures. For example, there was an offer from Rodman & Renshaw at $7 per share.

However, this was rebuffed. Instead, yesterday Cowen agreed to a so-called "reverse merger" with hedge fund Ramius LLC, which will own 71% of the new entity. On the news, Cowen's shares increased 37%.

Earlier this morning, Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) announced that it raised its fifth dedicated private equity secondaries fund -- GS Vintage Fund V -- with roughly $5.5 billion in capital commitments. This news was hinted at on Friday in The Wall Street Journal and was confirmed by the investment bank. The fund will focus on acquiring portfolios of private equity assets and includes private investors throughout America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.

This isn't the only news GS will make this week, as the firm is slated to step into the earnings spotlight. The current quarterly earnings estimate stands at $1.59 per share. Let's take a quick technical look at the investment bank and see what could happen if earnings miss or beat expectations.

The nearly universal sentiment about investment banking is that it's dead. And I can understand why. M&A is tepid. IPOs are gone. Lending is extremely difficult. So, where can firms like Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) make money?

Bear in mind that these firms think about this every day. Over decades, they have also found ways to make big-bucks in almost any environment.

Actually, according to a cover story in Barron's [a paid publication], it looks like these firms may have yet-again found another way to thrive in a difficult environment.

Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) may cut 5% of its workforce. Given the drop-off in investment banking activity and asset management, the number may not be high enough, but it is a start. Wall Street is still worried about the bank's future, as its stock price shows. Shares change hands at $21, down more than 50% during that last year. Morgan is doing better than some other companies in its sector, but the deepening recession could hurt earnings more than last year.

According to The Wall Street Journal (subscription requited), "The New York firm, which let go of about 7,000 employees last year, may decide on another round of staffing cuts in the next two weeks."

Just when you think you've heard it all, you hear more. In the last year, Wall Street -- or more specifically, the brokerage units of New York financial companies -- lost $35 billion. (Worldwide, financial institutions have taken $1 trillion in write-offs of bad assets). Those firms received a large proportion of the $350 billion TARP and persuaded the Treasury to guarantee losses from hundreds of billions worth of their financial toxic waste. Their reward? $18.4 billion in bonuses.

How much of the TARP went to paying for those bonuses? The banks have cleverly neglected to report that. But let's face it -- money is fungible. So if they did not use the money from the deposits they received from the Treasury to pay bonuses, our tax dollars freed up cash they may have had from other sources that did go to paying those $18.4 billion in bonuses.

JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) posted earnings Thursday. In a surprise to analysts, who had been expecting a break-even quarter, JPM reported earning 7 cents for the fourth quarter.

While the report showed a 76% decline from the previous year, the news pushed the stock to early gains in the face of a drop in the Dow.

Typical of the lack of conviction in the markets, JPM gave up early gains. Subsequent trading restored the stock to the positive column before it succumbed to a late-day sell-off that shaved more than 6% from its market value.

The mid-morning decline in JPM occurred as Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) plummeted to a new low at $7.50. BAC is sagging under the weight of absorbing Countrywide and Merrill Lynch, both of which have proven more difficult to digest than earlier thought.

Bank stocks in general are under heavy selling pressure after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke declared Wednesday that billions more will be required to restore stability to the nation's (and the world's) banking system.

This post is part of a special annual report -- Top Stock Picks '09 -- in which TheStockAdvisors.com asked 75 leading newsletter advisors to select their favorite investment for the new year.

"I've followed Gladstone Capital (NASDAQ: GLAD) for many years," says Mark Skousen in Forecasts & Strategies. Here, he chooses the business development company as a top idea for 2009.

"Gladstone is a business development company (BDC) run by the 'father of BDCs,' David Gladstone. Gladstone is a conservative investor who is careful in his lending.

"His investment company, Gladstone Capital, specializes in debt investments in small- and medium-sized companies that seek additional funding, recapitalization, debt reduction, and short-term bridge financing.

"Unlike other BDCs, Gladstone always has been prudent in its lending. It has no exposure to subprime mortgages and no exposure to home building -- but it is being hurt by U.S. recession fears.

"Though the shares are volatile, I think the stock is dirt cheap, having suffered a sharp sell-off due to the deep recession and financial crisis.

"It is off 70% so far this year, which is far too much, in my judgment. With any kind of economic recovery under an Obama administration, I expect Gladstone to be back in good form.

Bad news for money-hungry college grads looking to cash in as investment bankers: New disclosure rules could change the way you're paid.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that "New accounting rules are taking hold for mergers and acquisitions that will shine a perhaps scary light on just how much corporations pay the investment banks and bankers that advise them on deals."

Here's how it currently works: Companies that make acquisitions are now able to lump the "advisory fees" in with the price of the target company as part of the "goodwill" that is mainly used to cover the cost paid for the company above and beyond its book value. But new rules would require companies to disclose investment banking fees as a separate expense.

According to Dealogic, investment banking revenue fell 35% in 2008. New rules that require companies to show how much they're paying for advice on deals that generally end up destroying value could set the industry up for further declines.

If this keeps up, top business school graduates might have no choice but to take jobs that actually create something.

With bonuses down big across Wall Street as the market meltdown send income statements deep into the red, a lot of investment bankers aren't going to be too pleased with their bonuses this year.

Credit Suisse is trying something a little bit different. Credit Suisse will be paying it bankers their bonuses with a combination of the usual cash and nearly impossible to trade junk bonds: the kind of garbage that banks have been trying to sell to the Treasury Department to dump the liquidity problem onto taxpayers.

I like this plan: If the bonds really are just illiquid -- and not total crap, as I'm inclined to suspect -- then the bankers will make out like bandits in a few years when credit markets stabilize and liquidity returns.

Another part of Credit Suisse's bonus program is generating some controversy: a portfolio of the cash bonuses paid out will have a "clawback" provision requiring that they be repaid if the employee leaves within two years. According (subscription required) to The Wall Street Journal, this could lead to some lawsuits

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is: As long as employees are notified of the terms of their pay package before they do the work, the banks can pay them whatever/however they want.

They should be happy to be receiving bonuses at all.

It would be pretty nifty to bank online with Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS). It is the world's premier investment bank, although it has converted itself to a commercial bank to get government funding.

Still, saying I bank online with Goldman sounds better than saying I bank online with the First National Bank of Akron Ohio.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "If Goldman goes ahead, the new unit will seek deposits that can be used to fund various businesses now that Goldman is a bank-holding company." In other words, now that Goldman is a bank, it wants to drive up deposits. Starting an online bank is cheaper than going out and buying a number of regional banks to pick up their depositor bases.

All kidding aside, the chance to have an account at such a prestigious financial institution could draw a great deal of money, especially from the well-to-do. A marquis name should make for marquis customers. And, that should bring Goldman a lot of the assets it needs to fund its more profitable businesses.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Bloomberg is reporting that the global banking industry could lose 350,000 jobs by the middle of next year. That would be about 20% of the employees in the sector.

That level of unemployment represents an almost unimaginable human tragedy and one that might have been avoided in part if management at large financial house had not bet the bank on mortgage derivatives. But, that is water under the bridge.

The question which gets begged is where all of those people will go. Many bankers are not qualified for other high-paying jobs, which means they will stay unemployed for long periods or will face having to take significant cuts in their incomes. Either way, the shift will take a large toll on government services such as unemployment benefits. Let's not forget the lost taxes.

The destruction of the banking industry is a microcosm of what many happen across sector after sector if the recession bites hard. Autos may be the next domino to fall, but retail and hospitality won't be far behind it. Suddenly hundreds of thousands of jobs become millions, and, if things get especially bad, tens of millions.

Financial services is the canary in the coal mine. If the industry cannot fine some employment equilibrium it is bad for everyone.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

This morning, investors were stunned to learn that Deutsche Bank analysts put out a note arguing that shares of General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) may be worthless in a year. Though the shares of the automaker are tumbling, this call shows once again that most analysts are a day late and a dollar short. Unfortunately, that's pretty typical.

Seriously, the troubles of GM and the rest of auto industry are well-known to anyone with a pulse. Auto sales are horrid. Democrats are pushing for a government bailout, which GM does not deserve. Retirees are getting squeezed. Yet to many analysts, this is a stock worth holding. According to Thomson/First Call, five rate GM's stock a Hold and one a Buy. There are four Underperforms and two Sells. That's shocking. If these analysts had any guts, they would all rate GM a Sell before it runs out of money.

The case at Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) is similar. Only two analysts rate the struggling automaker a Sell. Seven rate it a Buy and one an Underperform. Maybe these geniuses don't read a newspaper or a website. Perhaps they are betting on a massive government bailout to help Detroit. Either way, they show that investors certainly aren't being helped by Wall Street's wisemen.