Growth, for its own sake, has tripped up many companies -- and investors, for that matter.
 
Every year around this time, financial publications publish their list of America's fastest-growing companies. And their advertising departments love them. These are often the most popular issues of the year, as consumers try to find "the next Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT)" or "the next Google (Nasdaq: GOOG)."
 
Yet here's what these publications won't tell you as they're trying to drum up the media buzz: The fastest-growing companies are not often the best investments. In the pursuit of rapid growth, these companies resort to actions that are against the interest of shareholders.
 
Rapid growth isn't always a sure signal of a company's health. We've compiled a list of three types of high-growth companies you should avoid.
 

1. The Money-Raisers

Growth-oriented companies and Wall Street bankers are often locked in an unsavory dance. The bankers offer the promise of fresh cash to help these companies rapidly expand -- but with a catch that most investors overlook. Not only must these companies issue fresh stock to the bankers' clients in exchange for the money, which results in a dilution in the investment stake of existing shareholders, but these bankers also help themselves to another pair of investment perks that can dilute investors -- options and warrants.

1
David Sterman

David Sterman

David Sterman has worked as an investment analyst for nearly two decades. He is currently an analyst for StreetAuthority.com

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
9 Comments So Far
weerertyfy Wrote: Dec 29, 2012 8:36 PM
in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone

http://x.co/q8oh

http://x.co/q8oh

http://x.co/q8oh

http://x.co/q8oh
¦\_?????_/¦
¦ ¦\|/
¦ ? ? ¦—?—
¦? ?---? ?¦/|\
¦ ?—? /
?—-?————-??
?¦ ¦?
?-—————-?
UItraMan Wrote: Dec 29, 2012 7:26 PM
A card-carrying Republican says, "What if I prefer the Founders ideal of self reliance & believe everyone should be self reliant?"

Hmmmmm....is this Republican talking about the Bush bank bailouts, the insurance company bailouts, the ethanol mandates, the Wall Street bailouts, the auto bailout, the airline bailout, the Big Pharma handout, agricultural subsidies, pork barrel spending and the Republican party's 'Faith-Based Initiatives,' to name just a few of the Republican wealth redistribution schemes.

Are these card-carrying Republicans talking about self-reliance for the poor but ENDLESS HANDOUTS for corporations with political connections and contributions to the Republican party?
UItraMan Wrote: Dec 29, 2012 7:01 PM
The problem is that we haven't paid for the added cost of defense... wars without funding is a big part of why we are in debt. Wars with unintended consequences is why we have a power vacuum in the middle east. If we want to be the world's enforcerer, then we have to pay for it through increased revenues/taxes... Republicans don't want that. Special interests own the Congress, so we need to change our laws to limit the impact of money, but the Supreme Court was recently against that by calling companies people. Get rid of the money influence by getting involved in changing our Congress if you want to make a difference!
UItraMan Wrote: Dec 29, 2012 7:02 PM
GOP House members have stonewalled on the debt limit and harmed the country's credit rating, then demanded that sequestration cuts be adopted as part of the deal to resolve the crisis they created. They wanted huge budget cuts then, but don't seem to want them now, especially if the budget cuts might hurt their own sacred cows. If the White House and congress really wanted to solve the federal budget crisis, they would do nothing. At the end of the year, the Bush tax cuts would expire and federal spending cuts would go into effect, impacting all parts of the federal budget.
UItraMan Wrote: Dec 29, 2012 7:02 PM
In a few years, the budget would be balanced. But of course we can't expect our elected officials to stand by and let the deficit be resolved. What would they fight about if that happened?

Let's follow standard Republican protocol by promoting more tax cuts and complaining about the National Debt in order to pay for increased defense spending.

Oh wait...I don't think that makes any mathematical sense...
UItraMan Wrote: Dec 29, 2012 6:55 PM
Ronald Reagan invited the Taliban into the White House; of course, they were known as the Mujahadeen back then.
UItraMan Wrote: Dec 29, 2012 6:55 PM
"Fury as Mormons posthumously baptise Anne Frank for 'TENTH time in more than two decades'"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104878/Fury-Mormons-posthumously-baptise-Holocaust-victim-Anne-Frank-TENTH-time-23-years.html

Can I put a codicil in my will to have an appropriate payment sent to the Mormon church so that I may buy my way into heaven? Is this capitalism?
UItraMan Wrote: Dec 29, 2012 6:55 PM
And now I've found out that Mitt Romney's church has baptized Anne Dunham, President Barack Hussein Obama's mother.

Is this a Republican end-point, where even Heaven is up for sale?
UItraMan Wrote: Dec 29, 2012 6:55 PM
Here's how Republicans obfuscate their desire to sell tickets into the Kingdom of God, "The standard reason for post mortum baptism is due to relations requesting the ritual."

A real Christian says, "so a relative can buy your way into Heaven with a donation to the Mormons?"

These Republicans prostitute God and are a disgrace to the New Covenant that Jesus made with humanity upon his death on the cross.