U.S. COINS

Alternative Scenarios 

Suggest Different 

Benefits and Losses 

from Replacing the $1 

Note with a $1 Coin

Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee

on Federal Financial Management, 

Government Information, Federal Services, 

and International Security, Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

February 2012

GAO-12-307

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-307, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Federal 

Financial Management, Government 

Information, Federal Services, and 

International Security, Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

February 2012

U.S. COINS

Alternative Scenarios Suggest Different Benefits 

and Losses from Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 

Coin 

Why GAO Did This Study

In March 2011, GAO reported that 

replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin 

would provide a net benefit to the 

government of about $5.5 billion over 

30 years, or an average of about $184 

million per year. This benefit, which 

GAO estimated using an economic 

model based on a set of assumptions, 

was entirely attributable to 

“seigniorage,” a term defined as the 

difference between the cost of 

producing coins or notes and their face 

value. Seigniorage reduces 

government borrowing and interest 

costs, resulting in a financial benefit to 

the government. As GAO noted, the 

estimated net benefit could increase or 

decrease with changes in the 

assumptions.

GAO was asked to provide additional 

details on its 2011 analysis. 

Accordingly, GAO (1) updated its 

analysis to account for recent changes 

in note processing, among other 

things, and based on this update 

determined (2) the specific benefit or 

loss to the government for each of the 

first 10 years of its 30-year analysis; 

(3) the net benefit or loss to the 

government over 10 years if the 

interest savings due to seigniorage are 

excluded from the analysis; and (4) the 

net benefit or loss to the government 

over 10 years if it is assumed that each 

note will be replaced by 1 coin, rather 

than 1.5 coins, as GAO assumed in its 

30-year analysis. 

GAO used the economic model it 

developed for its 2011 report, updated 

certain factors, and varied the 

assumptions for seigniorage and the 

replacement ratio of coins to notes as 

requested. 

What GAO Found

According to GAO’s updated analysis, replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would 

provide a net benefit to the government of approximately $4.4 billion over 30 

years, or an average of about $146 million per year. The overall net benefit was 

due solely to increased seigniorage and not to reduced production costs. This 

estimate differs from GAO’s 2011 estimate because it considers recent efficiency 

improvements in note processing that have extended the expected life of the $1 

note and other updated information. GAO’s estimate covered 30 years to be 

consistent with previous GAO analyses and because that period roughly 

coincides with the life expectancy of the $1 coin.

Using the same model and assumptions used for its 30-year analysis, GAO 

found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would provide a net loss to the 

government of about $531 million in the first 10 years, or an average of about 

$53 million per year. The cost of producing a large number of coins necessary for 

the transition would result in a net loss in 6 of the first 7 years. In the eighth year, 

and for the remaining 2 years, this situation is reversed: the interest savings 

outweigh the production costs and the net benefits would be positive. Overall, the 

net loss over 10 years compared with the net benefit GAO estimated over 30 

years would occur because of large costs in the first few years to produce the 

initial supply of $1 coins. 

If the interest savings due to increased seigniorage are excluded from the 

analysis, the government would incur a total net loss of about $1.8 billion over 10 

years, or an average of $179 million per year. With no interest savings to offset 

the costs of coin production, net losses would be incurred in 9 of the 10 years. As 

in the preceding scenario, these production costs are greatest in the first 4 years, 

when a large number of coins need to be produced for the transition. Although 

this scenario suggests there are no net benefits of switching to a $1 coin, GAO 

believes that excluding the interest savings related to seigniorage omits a 

monetary benefit to the government. 

If it is assumed that each $1 note will be replaced by 1, rather than 1.5, $1 coins, 

the government would incur a total net loss of about $582 million over 10 years, 

or an average of about $58 million per year. The costs of producing coins for the 

transition dominate in the first 3 years, followed by benefits in the fourth year due 

to the overproduction of coins during the transition. In this scenario, net losses 

continue to accrue through year 10. Net losses in this scenario are smaller than 

in the preceding scenario because fewer coins are produced and coin production 

costs are lower, but the one-to-one replacement does not provide increased 

seigniorage. Moreover, this lower replacement ratio is not consistent with the 

experiences of other countries that have switched from notes to coins and is 

likely to produce too few coins to meet demand, which could be disruptive to the 

economy.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Federal Reserve and Treasury 

Department noted that GAO’s 30-year estimate does not consider the cost to the 

private sector or environmental impacts. GAO agrees that such costs and 

impacts are important considerations, but GAO identified no quantitative 

estimates that could be evaluated or modeled.

View GAO-12-307. For more information, 

contact Lorelei St.James at (202) 512-2834 or 

stjamesl@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

Letter 1 

Our Updated Estimate Shows That Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 

Coin Could Provide a Net Benefit of $4.4 Billion to the 

Government over 30 Years 3

Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin Would Result in a $531 

Million Net Loss over the First 10 Years 6

Without Counting Seigniorage, Switching to a $1 Coin Would 

Result in a Net Loss 7

Switching to a $1 Coin Would Result in a Net Loss if Coins 

Replaced Notes on a 1-to-1 Basis 9

Concluding Observations 10

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 10

Appendix I Comments from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System 13

Appendix II Comments from the Department of the Treasury 15

Figures

Figure 1: Discounted Net Benefit to the Government of Replacing 

$1 Notes with $1 Coins over 30 Years, by Year 5

Figure 2: Net Benefits and Net Losses to the Government over the 

First 10 Years 7

Figure 3: Net Benefits and Net Losses to the Government 

Excluding Seigniorage 8

Figure 4: Net Benefits and Net Losses to the Government Assuming 

a 1-to-1 Replacement Ratio 9

Contents

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 15, 2012

The Honorable Scott P. Brown

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, 

Government Information, Federal Services, 

and International Security

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

U.S. Senate

Dear Senator Brown:

Over the past 40 years, many countries have replaced lowerdenomination notes with coins as a means to provide a financial benefit to 

their governments. We have reported five times over the past 22 years 

that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would provide a net benefit to the 

federal government of hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Most 

recently, in March 2011, we reported that such a replacement would 

result in a net benefit of about $5.5 billion over 30 years, or an average of 

about $184 million per year.1

• the specific benefit or loss to the government for each of the first 10

years for our 30-year analysis;

We found that this benefit was entirely 

attributable to an increase in seigniorage, which is the difference between 

the cost of producing coins or notes and their face value. To determine 

the estimated net benefit, we developed a model based on a set of 

assumptions and noted that changing these assumptions could increase 

or decrease the estimated net benefit. You asked us to provide additional 

details on our 2011 analysis and to conduct additional analyses changing 

two assumptions. To answer your request, we first updated our 2011 

estimate because of recent changes by the Federal Reserve and 

Department of Treasury in note processing and $1 coin production, the 

results of which are provided below. We then used this updated 30-year 

estimate to address your request that we provide

• the net benefit or loss to the government over 10 years if the interest 

savings due to seigniorage is excluded from the analysis; and

 

1

GAO, U.S. Coins: Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin Would Provide a Financial 

Benefit to the Government, GAO-11-281 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 4, 2011).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

• the net benefit or loss to the government over 10 years if the 

replacement ratio is 1 coin to 1 note, rather than 1.5 coins for 1 note, 

as we assumed in our 30-year analysis.

To identify the benefit or loss of replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin, we 

updated the economic model developed for our 2011 report, and varied 

the assumptions for seigniorage and the replacement ratio of coins to 

notes as requested. Briefly, our model estimated net benefit or net loss to 

the government by subtracting the benefit of a status quo scenario from a 

replacement scenario. In the updated status quo scenario, notes remain 

the dominant form of currency at the $1 denomination, the United States 

Mint (the Mint) ceases production of $1 coins, the currently stored coins 

are gradually released into circulation to meet transactional demand, and 

production of $1 coins resumes after the stored coins are released.2 In 

the replacement scenario, we assumed, among other things, that the 

production of $1 notes would stop immediately; no notes would be 

withdrawn from circulation, but because of their shorter life span, they 

would naturally fall out of circulation within a few years; the $1 coins in 

storage would immediately be released into circulation; and the Mint 

would produce a large number of $1 coins during the first 4 years of the 

transition. Using the updated economic model, we then varied the 

assumptions for seigniorage and the replacement ratio of coins to notes 

to determine the net benefits or losses over the first 10 years, as 

requested. We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 

through February 2012 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

2

As of September 30, 2011, approximately 1.4 billion $1 coins were stored with the 

Federal Reserve.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

The federal government realizes a financial gain when it issues notes or 

coins because both forms of currency usually cost less to produce than 

their face value. This gain, which is known as seigniorage, equals the 

difference between the face value of currency and its costs of 

production.3

Replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would provide a net benefit to the 

government of approximately $4.4 billion over 30 years, amounting to an 

average yearly discounted net benefit

Seigniorage reduces the government’s need to raise 

revenues through borrowing, and with less borrowing, the government 

pays less interest over time, resulting in a financial benefit.

4 of about $146 million.5 This benefit 

would occur because, based on differences in how notes and coins are 

used in the economy, more coins than notes would have to be circulated 

to meet demand, and therefore more seigniorage would be created. This 

estimate assumes a 4-year transition period beginning in 2012, during 

which the production of $1 notes would stop immediately. On the basis of

information provided by the Mint, we assumed that during the first year 

the Mint would convert existing equipment to increase its production 

capability for $1 coins. We also assumed that it would take 4 years for the 

Mint to produce enough coins to replace the currently outstanding $1 

notes. Our assumptions cover a range of factors including a replacement 

ratio of 1.5 coins to 1 note to take into consideration the fact that coins 

circulate with less frequency than notes and therefore a larger number 

are required in circulation,

6

 

3

Traditionally, seigniorage is defined as the difference between the face value of coins and 

their cost of production. As long as there is public demand, the government creates this 

net value when it puts coins into circulation. Similarly, when the government issues notes, 

it creates an analogous net value, equal to the face value of the notes less their 

production costs. In this report, we use the term “seigniorage” to refer to the value created 

from the issuance of both coins and notes.

the expected rate of growth in the demand for 

currency over 30 years, the costs of producing and processing both coins 

4

A discounted net value uses a rate, known as the discount rate, to convert the value of 

payment or receipts expected in future years to today’s value, taking into account that the 

further into the future an amount is paid or received, the smaller its value is today. 

Applying a discount rate establishes a consistent basis for comparing alternative 

investments that will have differing patterns of costs and benefits over many years.

5

Our estimate of the discounted net benefit to the government of replacing the $1 note 

with a $1 coin is not intended to replicate budget scoring that would be conducted by the 

Congressional Budget Office. 

6

As explained in more detail later, we used a 1.5-to-1 replacement ratio based on our 

analysis of the experiences of Canada and the United Kingdom.

Our Updated Estimate 

Shows That Replacing 

the $1 Note with a $1 

Coin Could Provide a 

Net Benefit of $4.4 

Billion to the 

Government over 30 

Years 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

and notes, and the differential life spans of coins and notes. Our analyses

are projected over 30 years to be consistent with previous GAO analyses 

and because that period roughly coincides with the life expectancy of the 

$1 coin.

As shown in figure 1, the annual benefit would vary over the 30 years—

the government would incur a net loss in 6 of the first 7 years and then 

realize a net benefit in the remaining years. The early net loss would be 

due in part to the up-front costs to the Mint of increasing its coin 

production during the transition, together with the limited interest expense 

the government would avoid in the first few years after replacement 

began. The large net benefit in 2016 would occur because we assume 

that the Mint’s production at maximum capacity during the 4-year 

transition period would lead to some overproduction and thus production 

would drop dramatically in 2016. Because of the far lower coin production 

costs, the net benefit to the government would temporarily spike in that 

year. We also found our net benefit estimate was due solely to increased 

seigniorage and not to reduced production costs. Like all estimates, this 

one is uncertain, particularly in the later years, and thus the benefit could 

be greater or smaller than estimated. Furthermore, inputs to our analysis, 

such as the costs to produce $1 notes and $1 coins, will change over 

time. Changes to the inputs and the assumptions used in the estimate 

could increase or decrease the estimated net benefit.
 

Page 5 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

Figure 1: Discounted Net Benefit to the Government of Replacing $1 Notes with $1 Coins over 30 Years, by Year

This estimate differs from our 2011 estimate, which found that 

replacement would result in a net benefit of about $5.5 billion over 30 

years, or an average of about $184 million per year, because it takes into 

account two key actions that occurred since our 2011 report.

• In April 2011, the Federal Reserve began using new equipment to 

process notes, which has increased the expected life of the $1 note to 

an average of 56 months, according to the Federal Reserve, 

compared with the 40 months we used in our 2011 analysis. The 

longer note life reduces the costs of the status quo scenario and thus 

reduces the expected net benefits of replacing the $1 note with a $1 

coin.

• In December 2011, the Treasury Department announced that it would 

take steps to eliminate the overproduction of dollar coins by relying on 

the approximately 1.4 billion $1 coins stored with the Federal Reserve 

as of September 30, 2011, to meet the relatively small transactional 

demand for dollar coins. This new policy will reduce the cost of 

producing $1 coins that we estimated in the status quo scenario and 

thus reduces the expected net benefits of replacing the $1 note with a 

$1 coin.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

In addition, our updated analysis used a start date of 2012 rather than 

2011 and used the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent estimates 

for future government borrowing costs, which are lower than the figures 

used in our 2011 analysis. The reduced borrowing costs reduced the net 

benefits of switching to a $1 coin.7

Finally, as in our 2011 report, we considered only the fiscal effect of this 

change on the government. We did not consider other factors, such as 

the relative environmental and societal costs and benefits of the status 

quo and a replacement. Further analysis would be needed to determine, 

for example, whether the net effects of a replacement would be positive 

or negative for the environment,8 or how the costs to industry would 

compare with the net benefit to the government. As we noted in our 2011 

report, the costs to industry of a replacement are difficult to quantify and, 

according to stakeholders we spoke to, would include both near-term 

transition costs, such as the costs of retooling cash drawers, and longerterm costs from structural changes to ways of doing business, such as 

higher transportation costs incurred by armored carriers since coins are 

heavier than notes.

Across the first 10 years of our 30-year analysis, replacing the $1 note 

with a $1 coin would result in $531 million in net loss, or approximately 

$53 million per year in net loss to the government. For this analysis, we 

maintained all the key assumptions of our 30-year analysis—notably that 

1.5 coins would be produced to replace each $1 note and that the 

demand for $1-denominated currency continues to grow each year. As 

shown in figure 2, the cost of producing coins would result in a net loss in 

6 of the first 7 years when the Mint produced $1 coins at high levels to 

enable the transition. Net benefits would occur in each of the remaining 

years. Overall, the net loss over the first 10 years compared with the 

benefits we estimated over 30 years would occur because of large costs 

during the first 4 years to produce the initial supply of $1 coins, while the 

 

7

In addition to the changes listed above, we revised the level of transactional demand for 

coins that is assumed to exist in the status quo scenario. On the basis of updated 

information from the Federal Reserve, we assumed a smaller transactional demand for 

coins. This change had only a minimal impact on the findings. 

8

For example, officials from the Bureau of Printing and Engraving pointed out that 

replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would also have environmental impacts relating to 

obtaining raw materials and carbon dioxide emissions, among others.

Replacing the $1 Note 

with a $1 Coin Would 

Result in a $531 

Million Net Loss over 

the First 10 Years
 

Page 7 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

benefits of reduced interest expense due to increased seigniorage would 

occur more heavily in later years. 

Figure 2: Net Benefits and Net Losses to the Government over the First 10 Years

Note: The large net benefit in 2016 occurs because we assume that the Mint’s production at 

maximum capacity during the 4-year transition period will lead to some overproduction and production 

drops dramatically in 2016. Because of the far lower coin production costs, the net benefit to the 

government will temporarily spike in that year.

Under a scenario that does not consider interest savings due to 

seigniorage, a net loss of approximately $1.8 billion would accrue during 

the 10-year period for an average cost of $179 million per year. As shown 

in figure 3, net losses would be incurred in 9 of the 10 years. In particular, 

large costs would be incurred in each of the first 4 years because of the 

large number of coins that would need to be produced for the transition, 

as was the case in the scenario discussed above. As in the previous 

analysis, in year 5, there would be a temporary net benefit because coins 

would be overproduced during the previous 4 years and coin production 

would fall to zero in that year—and the cost is therefore less than the cost 

of producing $1 notes that would have been incurred had the transition 

not taken place. After year 5, net losses would continue to be incurred 

because, although the life of a $1 coin is longer than the life of a $1 note, 

Without Counting 

Seigniorage, 

Switching to a $1 Coin 

Would Result in a Net 

Loss 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

coins cost more than notes to produce. All of the scenarios assume that 

additional currency would need to be produced not only to replace worn 

out or lost currency, but also to support a growing economy. Thus, in this 

scenario, we found that even with the longer life of the $1 coin, the cost of 

producing coins for the growing economy after the transition would 

exceed the cost of producing $1 notes in each of those years that would 

have been incurred without the replacement. While this scenario suggests 

that there would be no net benefits from switching to a $1 coin, we 

believe that not including the interest savings related to seigniorage omits 

a monetary benefit to the government.

Figure 3: Net Benefits and Net Losses to the Government Excluding Seigniorage

Note: The net benefit in 2016 occurs because we assume that the Mint’s production at maximum 

capacity during the 4-year transition period will lead to some overproduction and production drops 

dramatically in 2016. Because of the far lower coin production costs, the net benefit to the 

government will temporarily spike in that year.
 

Page 9 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

Under this scenario, we include the net benefits of interest savings related 

to seigniorage, but assume that a single $1 coin would be produced to 

replace each $1 note. In total, across the 10 years the total net loss of 

switching to $1 coins would be $582 million, or just over $58 million per 

year. As shown in figure 4, net losses would be incurred in 9 of 10 years 

of this scenario. The costs of producing coins for the transition are highest 

in the first 3 years, followed by benefits in the fourth year because of the 

overproduction of coins during the transition. In this scenario, net losses 

would continue through year 10.

Figure 4: Net Benefits and Net Losses to the Government Assuming a 1-to-1 

Replacement Ratio

Note: The large net benefit in 2015 occurs because we assume that the Mint’s production at 

maximum capacity during the transition period will lead to some overproduction and production drops 

dramatically in 2015. Because of the far lower number of coins produced in a one coin to one note 

replacement scenario and the corresponding lower production costs, the net benefit to the 

government will temporarily spike 1 year earlier than in the other scenarios.

In this scenario, far fewer coins would be produced because of the low 

replacement ratio, and thus the costs associated with their production 

would be much less than in the previous scenarios. However, this 

scenario also involves no gains to the government because of 

seigniorage because only one coin would be produced to replace each 

note that will fall out of circulation. In fact, the replacement case in this 

Switching to a $1 Coin 

Would Result in a Net 

Loss if Coins 

Replaced Notes on a 

1-to-1 Basis 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

scenario results in reduced seigniorage relative to the status quo because 

the cost of producing a note is less than the cost of producing a coin, so 

each $1 coin has less seigniorage associated with its issuance than the 

$1 note it is replacing.

A caution concerning a 1-to-1 replacement of coins to notes is that under 

this scenario, there would likely not be enough coins to meet demand. A 

shortage of currency could have significant negative consequences for 

the economy, such as hampering cash transactions. As we noted in our 

2011 report, other countries that have switched from notes to coins have 

found that, because people use notes and coins differently, the number of 

coins needed for a replacement is greater than the number of notes to be 

replaced. While the actual replacement ratio needed is not known ahead 

of any transition, our 2011 analysis of the transition to a $1 coin in 

Canada and the £1 coin in the United Kingdom led us to decide that a 

1.5-to-1 ratio was a reasonable level.

Estimating whether the government would derive benefits from replacing 

the $1 note with a $1 coin requires an analysis with many assumptions.

As is clear from the findings in this report, not accounting for the benefits 

related to increased seigniorage can substantially affect the estimate.

While we identified and updated a few factors used in these analyses that 

changed since our 2011 report, other factors could also change over time, 

such as the cost of inputs for notes and coins or changes in the use of 

cash by the public, among other things. As such, these analyses are 

highly affected by changing conditions as well as by conceptual views on 

certain key issues, such as seigniorage and replacement ratios.

We provided a draft of this report to the Federal Reserve and the 

Department of the Treasury for review and comment. Their written 

comments are reprinted in appendixes I and II, respectively. The Federal 

Reserve noted that it believes our 30-year estimate may overstate the net 

financial benefit to the government because it (1) does not adequately 

address the costs to the private sector, state and local government, and 

the Federal Reserve and (2) does not consider potential increases in the 

cost of raw material for coins or possible future changes in discount rates. 

Similarly, the Treasury Department noted that our analysis should 

consider the cost to the private sector and the impact on the environment. 

We agree that the benefits and costs to the private sector and the impact 

on the environment are important considerations. However, we found no 

quantitative estimates of the costs to the private sector or environmental 

Concluding 

Observations 

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 11 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

impacts that could be evaluated or modeled. We did not assess potential 

environmental impacts because these concerns were beyond the scope 

of our analysis and we did not identify quantitative estimates of such 

impacts. We included all relevant costs to the Federal Reserve that the 

agency provided to us and found no data on the cost to state and local 

governments. We used the best data available on coin production costs, 

which accounts for the cost of raw materials, and we used the most 

current discount rate. Furthermore, we recognize that our analyses are 

highly affected by changing conditions, such as changes in the cost of 

coins and notes, which may alter the total cost savings associated with 

replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin.

In addition, the Federal Reserve noted an increased risk of counterfeiting

associated with replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin. We reported in 2011 

that counterfeiting of U.S. coins is currently minimal, according to the U.S. 

Secret Service.9

 The Federal Reserve also noted that we did not provide 

a sensitivity analysis that varies key assumptions such as possible 

increases in the public’s use of electronic payments. In 2011, we reported 

the results of our sensitivity analyses, including one in which replacement 

leads to a decrease in the demand for currency as people switch to 

electronic payments. The Treasury also provided technical comments, 

which we addressed as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Chairman of the 

Federal Reserve. The report will also be available at no charge on the 

GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or by e-mail at stjamesl@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made key 

 

9

GAO-11-281.
 

Page 12 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

contributions to this report include Teresa Spisak (Assistant Director), 

Amy Abramowitz, Lindsay Bach, Patrick Dudley, Bess Eisenstadt, and 

David Hooper.

Sincerely yours,

Lorelei St. James

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Comments from the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Page 13 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

Appendix I: Comments from the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Appendix I: Comments from the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Page 14 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury

Page 15 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of the Treasury

Page 16 GAO-12-307 $1 Note Replacement Scenarios (544174)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.