One thing we try to avoid around here is anything that smacks of what passes for "service journalism" in the Business press. On Slate Henry Blodget does a great job of explaining exactly why thing like the "Top Ten Stocks for 2007" lists are so useless that they are little better than spam. And the emphasis on the word "little."
...anything you read in an investment magazine (or hear on investment TV or radio) was "in the market" the moment the story appeared. This means that, by the time you read it, several thousand professional investors who follow investment news 24/7 will have already scanned it and tossed it in their overflowing trash cans. The average professional will already have known at least 10 times as much about each of the 10 Stocks To Buy Now as the reporter who wrote the story. If, however, by some miracle, the reporter stumbled upon a persuasive fact or insight that previously eluded the money manager, it's a safe bet that the manager will instantly have acted on it. It's also a safe bet that any pro who contributed an idea to the magazine's stock-selection process will already have acted on that. And the pros will no doubt be very tempted to sell into the price surge created by any doctors and dentists (e.g., you) who rush to place buy orders when the latest issue of Fortune, et al., finally hits their desks.
Don't Buy the "10 Hot Stocks for 2007" [Slate.com]