Citibank Reinstatement: Fill & Download for Free

The 1999 repeal by our silly U.S. Congress of the section of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which legally separated Commercial Banking, Insurance, and Investment Banking from each other unfortunatelypermitted the creation of the "too big to fail" (systemically important) financial institutions through Mergers and Acquisitions, the first of which was the creation of Citigroup by the merger of Citibank and Travelers Insurance;permits cross-subsidization of Risk and Risks in a manner that is near impossible to regulate either by the managements of these companies or by the government,greatly increases Moral Hazard,and substantially contributed to the conditions which led to the 2008 Financial Crisis and the subsequent Great Recession (2007–2012).This is why that law should have been reinstated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and why The United Kingdom is engaged in similar "ring fencing" of their corresponding entities.For a further meditation on policy changes we should make to prevent a similar crisis in future, see my answer to Economic Policy: How can moral hazard be avoided in the financial sector in future?

I would say yes, but more importantly, the laws on usury need to be largely reinstated. There is a strong case to be made that usury has a definite effect on interstate commerce, and should therefore be regulated by the Federal Government. I remember when the back of a credit card agreement was a sea of States & Laws on interest rates. Now, the back is blank, and the front can have anything it wants. So, the Federal Government accomplished half of its task. It got the states laws off the books. But the lack of any real federal regulation on Credit cards is leading the american people, once again, to spend beyond their means, with large banks reaping the rewards.A cynical person might say that congress did exactly that the banks wanted them to do. Free them from the tyrany of the states, but NOT impose any real regulations themselves.....This is only partly in jest:remove this tool, and protect the US consumer from itself, and you will pull the milkteeth of the banks...

Both Paul Stickney and Chris Stevens are correct when they state that a card issuer can do pretty much whatever they want for any reason at all, or even for no reason.That said, there are issuers who will lower limits on inactive credit card accounts. Macy’s (Citibank), for example, is well-known for lowering limits on their store card to $500 if the account has been inactive for a certain period of time — often as short as 6 months. Dillard’s (Wells Fargo) is also known for doing this.The stated reason for doing this isn’t because of liquidity, but rather to a) grab your attention and encourage you to use the card and b) reduce the risk of loss should the card have been lost or misplaced by an unaware cardholder. You can usually have the original limit reinstated with a phone call.