He is saying that a company which invests a lot of its money into growth (by spending a lot of money on new buildings, infrastructure, staff, research, etc) will also have a changed calculated value as a result. So, the company may be performing very well but the returns for investors may be lower because the company is investing so heavily into growth. Conversely, a company may pay larger returns to investors purely because it is not currently investing in growth (which could be a problem long term, if for example you are holding stocks in a company that is not concerned or interested in growing and improving!)
I hope this makes sense?!