What's wrong with giving us an example, link, context? Just to be sure.
What you are probably seeing is zero trading volume. Without an example, there's no way to know. Maybe your data feed went down or you got a virus or the website you're using is having problems or you need to update your browser, etc.
The "a priori" of investing/trading is liquidity.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liqu...
http://www.investopedia.com/video/play/l...
Measures of Liquidity Risk
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/tra...
Most people would point to trading volume as a measure of liquidity, but high trading volume does not necessarily imply high liquidity. The Flash Crash of May 6, 2010 proved this with painful, concrete examples.
Although volume may not define liquidity, without volume, there can be no liquidity. As a rule of thumb for most traders, if there is little or no volume, there can be no trade. There are prior conditions that must exist before any trade can take place so you don't lose your money right off (a-priori). The ability to buy at market price without huge slippage is one criteria, and the ability to get out at market price is another.
Other answers are on target. I never buy a stock that trades less than 100,000 shares a day, because they lack volatility- the ability to move. If it doesn't trade, the price will tend to be stagnant.
When you look up any stock on your trading platform it will show the average daily volume of trades, usually based on the last 10 days.
If that is the case, it is a penny stock with little volume. That's a bad sign, I would never own a stock that is thinly traded, the spreads are too big.
because nobody is buying, selling or making offers on the particular stock.
_________________________^--------------------------____________________________ like that somtimes for like an hour
