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.

Obviously, things are getting worse in the financial world and not better. Most Wall Street firms have laid off workers on mortgage trading desks and fired overlapping workers due to "mergers" like the one between Bear Stearns and JP Morgan (NYSE:JPM). But, the evaluations by management at banks and investment houses is moving to other areas which are no longer making money like M&A and corporate finance. That could lead to more firings before the end of the year, in some cases to avoid paying bonuses to those who will get throw over the side.

According to the FT, "Executives and analysts say the redundancies – to be finalised this month as banks prepare next year's budgets – could top 70,000 among US groups alone and add to the estimated 150,000 jobs already lost by the financial sector worldwide."

Many Americans have little sympathy for New York City. Manhattan is often viewed as a center for rich people with multi-million dollar apartments, limousines, and private jets. But, a significant loss of jobs in the largest city in the US will do more than erode the tax base there.

Because of the concentration of wealth in NYC, there is also a concentration of demand for consumer goods. This is not just for Mercedes. It also includes hardware and software at Wall Street firms, building materials for high-rises, luxury goods from major retailers, and infrastructure supplies for the region's massive transportation and road systems.

What is bad for NYC is, to a very large extent, bad for the country.

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

As a young investment banker, one of my favorite parts of the job was designing and ordering the "deal toys," or "tombstones" at the end of the deal. My coup de grâce: a Lucite model of an open book, executed in yellow, to commemorate the syndication of a large loan for the publisher of yellow pages phone directories. A few large companies create all the tombstones for investment banks across the U.S., and most investment bankers would sooner give up town car rides home after 8 p.m. than their deal toys.

This week in the New Yorker, sad news: investment bankers haven't been calling companies like Icon Recognition, partially because they haven't been closing deals, and because of budget cuts. At Goldman Sachs, associates have been informed they'll have to start paying for their own deal toys.

While I was an investment banking analyst, we too suffered at the hands of the 'no deal toys' memo. The managing directors and vice presidents offered to chip in and pay for the Lucite doohickeys out of their own pockets, so key are they to the morale of fragile bankers and their clients. Also, nothing says "hands off, this is MY company" like a row of deal toys with your logo proudly displayed on the credenza of the VP of Finance of your client. Before we'd figured out which credit to charge the expense to, however, management had backed down and graciously decided to bill the client for the toys.

Phew! Icon Recognition, take heart: your bankers will be back. In the meantime, maybe you should look to some other industries for professionals whose tender egos need frequent reinforcement of a hard plastic nature. Maybe politicians?

The Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) plans to can 10% of its 32,500 person staff. Despite its glorious reputation, Goldman is not that different from other financial institutions (FIs). It earned high returns by borrowing too much and now that over-borrowing is causing a painful implosion. As I pointed out last night at The Wharton Club of Boston, the current debt-led bubble has cost $37 trillion so far -- six times more than the equity-led dot-com bubble.

The cost of debt is clear from a quick examination of Goldman's financial statements under current CEO Lloyd Blankfein. When he took over from current Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Goldman's ratio of assets to shareholder equity was 18.7 but by the end of 2007, the ratio peaked at 26.2 as assets more than doubled to $1.1 trillion and its return on equity (ROE) climbed to 32%.

Much of the increase in Goldman's ROE was due to debt. In particular, 65% of the increase in Goldman's ROE from 2003 to 2006 was a result of its industry-leading use of borrowed money to increase its assets. While high leverage amplifies returns when asset values climb, it causes even more offsetting pain when asset values decline. For example, the $305 billion in profits earned by the top nine investment banks over the last three years has been wiped out by $323 billion in write-downs in the last year.

Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) -- those fiendishly complex securities that slice bonds into different groups based on risk -- are a $1.3 trillion pile of toxic waste likely to be written down 90% from financial institutions' (FIs) books. That's a shame because so far FIs have written off $660 billion worth of subprime mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and that total is expected to top $2 trillion before it's all over. That is way more than the $340 billion in capital that resides on FIs books.

Since there is very little information about CDOs available, it is difficult to both put a value on them and to know how bad the damage is. One firm estimates that $254 billion of CDOs tied to subprime mortgages have defaulted. But corporate CDOs are privately traded, so the damage from writing down this toxic waste is difficult to quantify. These corporate CDOs were called synthetic -- they consisted of bundles of Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) on corporate bonds.

The $54 trillion CDS market -- famously deregulated by John McCain's chief economic advisor Phil "Americans are Whiners" Gramm -- is now causing shudders for owners of synthetic CDOs since they are tied to the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers along with Iceland's biggest banks. Fitch downgraded 422 classes of CDOs on October 13 after seven financial companies defaulted or were bailed out since September. And Barclays estimates that 70% of synthetic CDOs were tied to Lehman Brothers.

It's kind of amazing that any bank is earning a profit these days. But JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) pulled it off -- making a profit of $527 million -- 84% less than last year at this time. Bad loans are the culprit -- leading to $5.8 billion in write-downs, losses and credit provisions. And JPMorgan's outlook for the next few quarters is not upbeat.

What I find most interesting about its numbers is that one of its lines of business saw a boost in revenue and profit. In particular, its investment-banking division made $882 million in the third quarter -- 198% more than last year -- and its revenue rose $1.1 billion. Unfortunately, its retail and credit card units suffered. Retail bank earnings fell 61% to $247 million and its credit-card division's $292 million in profit was 63% below last year's.

Although its CEO is downplaying expectations, I think that JPMorgan will benefit from the new two-tiered banking system created by the $250 billion capital infusion plan. Banks that don't get enough government capital will lose deposit and loan business to the strongest players. JPMorgan -- which got $25 billion in taxpayer money -- will be one of the beneficiaries.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in JPMorgan securities.

Bloomberg News reports that Washington pulled another Sunday night special -- wiping out Wall Street as we have known it. Ironically, this move will put Wall Street back where it was prior to the Great Depression. How so? Last night the Fed approved changing Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) from investment banks to commercial ones. Morgan Stanley -- which may sell up to 20% of itself to Mitsubishi UFJ and may put merger discussions on hold -- and Goldman Sachs now have greater odds of remaining independent.

Most significantly, the change will allow both banks to take consumer deposits and get short-term loans from the Fed. In exchange for that cheap money, they will need to increase the amount of capital they have, take less risk, and submit themselves to tighter regulatory scrutiny. The capital increases are the most significant piece of this new puzzle. According to the New York Times, "Goldman Sachs has $1 of capital for every $22 of assets; Morgan Stanley has $1 for every $30. By contrast, Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) has less than $11 for every $1 of capital." Goldman and Morgan will be required to raise significant capital to reach that 11 to 1 ratio. How they do that still remains a mystery.

Ironically, prior to the Great Depression, banks like JPMorgan operated both commercial and investment banks -- taking deposits from consumers and doing stock offerings for business. I was surprised to learn that they already have billions in deposits. "Morgan Stanley had $36 billion in retail deposits as of August 31 and Goldman Sachs had $20 billion," according to the Times. Now, they'll need to add branches and invest in marketing and systems to expand that amount. So, although the industry will return to its pre-Great Depression structure -- it will be more tightly regulated than it was back then.

I have been astonished by the speed of the collapse of our financial system. There is no precedent in my lifetime for such a rapid collapse. And I doubt that the lessons of the Great Depression pertain to the current situation. This is the Greatest Depression -- about which I posted in March -- and the lessons of this one are likely to expose five fundamental flaws in our financial architecture.

These flaws are the reason for the rapid meltdown and they include:

1. Securitization -- the popularity of shifting risk from an originator to a group of investors in a package wrapped in a AAA credit rating based on flawed analysis.
2. Lack of transparency -- the inability to estimate the future cash flows of such a complex security -- thereby creating massive uncertainty in a period of decline.
3. Leverage -- borrowing way too much money with too tiny a sliver of capital to protect against risk -- making it possible to wipe out all the capital with a 6% decline in the value of these securities.
4. Heads-I-win, tails-you-lose pay -- Paying deal makers for the size of their deals and sticking taxpayers and shareholders with the losses.
5. Global interconnectedness -- thanks to information technology and ease of investment rules, a sneeze in the US causes hurricanes around the world.

How could we cure these problems? As I posted, we could end securitization, demand complete transparency, raise capital requirements, link pay to profits rather than sales, and create firewalls to prevent problems in one market from infecting the rest. But with the global financial architecture crumbling worldwide, there's no time for this now.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Twelve banks, lead by JP Morgan (NYSE:JPM) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), will set up a $70 billion loan facility which any of them can draw on in an emergency.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "The pool would act as a signal to the marketplace that banks, brokerages, and other financial companies can lean on the fund to take care of borrowing needs."

By some accounts, any one of the members in the pool can take down 33% of the $70 billion. If the financial crisis gets significantly worse, the partners may be battling each other for that money. Competition for the capital could become unpleasant.

One other way to look at the fund is that it is an M&A facility. If any single bank or broker owes the fund $30 billion, it may be a way for a stronger member, say Goldman, to buy that company by taking on its loan obligation.

An acquisition fund disguised as a lender venture. How clever.

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

Another shoe is dropping in the ongoing credit collapse here in this nation of whiners. According to the New York Times, the default rate on so-called Leveraged Loans -- (a very strange name if you ask me since a loan is leverage) that refers to loans used to finance corporate takeovers -- climbed fast from 0.24% in August 2007 to 3.3% in August 2008.

The loans that have gone bad so far are not big ones -- they are more like the canary in the coal mine -- hinting at bigger problems to come. The Times says, "the loans that have gone bad have been concentrated in two industries - real estate and auto parts. S.& P. calculates that they have accounted for almost half of this year's defaults. Gambling has also had problems, as it turns out that there are too many casinos in some places."

The biggest loans have yet to default. But their collapse is inevitable. That's because banks are scrambling to raise capital and shore up their balance sheets. And the leveraged loans were structured to benefit from a lending market in which the name of the game was to keep from losing market share by making it ever easier to borrow. Thus the terms of leveraged loans were easy -- featuring, as the Times reported, a "flood of 'covenant-lite' and 'toggle-[Payment in Kind] PIK' loans."