For the Logician, consider the following: The longer a company is in existence, the more chances it has to split, assuming it does well. Almost nothing soars forever, so when the appeal of a stock (like MSFT, for example) grows old, it ends up just sitting there. The fact that there are millions of shares outstanding is not a priori to the lack of movement in a stock, but it certainly helps it sit still. The lack of movement in a stock, however, doesn't NECESSARILY limit it's short-term money making potential. You just have to get into more size, which is precisely what daytraders who trade such stocks do.
the points u just made are obvious. i think u might have misunderstood what i meant,..maybe i haven't been clear enough; the fact that imbalances drive vola is just a no brainer, if u dont get the idea u have no biz whatsoever in the mkt. i wasn't makin' a case for volumes to become the prime engine that creates vola; but i noticed volumes most times [especially on indices] help create those imbalances responsible for range expansion...and i think theres a reason for that: hedge funds and institutional buyers are responsible for a good 2/3 if not more of the tot volumes on very active days and since they got an agenda it is likely they will push ranges, innit. do me a favor and check back in the past 2yrs how many days nyse/naz trended more than 1% and look at the volumes sustainin'' those moves. ..then come back and tell us what u found out...it is obvious to me that theres a pattern since futs rarely [if ever] made those moves on light volumes.