for every depositor at maturity of the group, if they had not won one earlier. There is some evidence that these changes in product features undermined the economic model of the product so that groups were no longer financially independent throughout their life cycle as per the original product but instead funds were used from later groups to support the cash flow of earlier groups. This meant that when new groups were prohibited by statute the position became untenable. Administrators began treating the total of terminating deposit money as a whole rather than a series of separate groups so in effect well performing groups cross-subsidised other groups. The size of the loan available via ballot wins became insufficient to buy a house due to inflation of house prices during the 25 year life of the group Freeing up of financial markets and general increases in prosperity had seen mortgages become widely available through banks to anyone who was credit-worthy. After no more groups could be created, knowledge of how they were supposed to work was progressively lost, rule changes during the merger and product changes phases did not keep up with the features of the product so that there arose an increasing grey area where the society rules were no longer clear about how they should be operated. Above all many depositors who had been pressured by door to door salespeople to start subscribing chose not to continue and simply abandoned the money they had saved, which had become a minor sum due to inflation. See also Starr-Bowkett Society Building societies Cooperatives Financial services Terminating deposit Social economy