One of the potential costs of additional purchases is that they could disrupt functioning in Treasury and MBS markets – a cost that the Desk carefully assesses when it implements the FOMC’s policy directive. As you know, there is a finite supply of Treasury and agency securities available to purchase, in terms of both total amount and amounts available in the market at any given time. If the Federal Reserve were to become too dominant a buyer or holder, it could reduce the tradable supply of these securities and discourage trading among market participants, leading to diminished liquidity and price discovery. A significant deterioration in liquidity could lead investors to demand a premium for transacting in these markets, ultimately raising borrowing costs and undermining the program’s policy goal.4 However, as discussed later, the purchases have gone smoothly so far, and market liquidity seems to be holding up well. Although the current program is different in some respects from prior balance sheet programs, its intended purpose and the ways the Committee anticipates it will impact the economy are similar. The purchases are conducted to achieve the FOMC’s dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability. Asset purchases help achieve this mandate by putting downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, supporting mortgage markets, and helping to make broader financial conditions more accommodative. The current purchases reduce interest rates and ease financial conditions through the same transmission channels as previous balance sheet programs.

14  Selling dollar rolls when concerns arise about the availability of certain TBA contracts is conceptually similar to making SOMA Treasury holdings available to the market through our securities lending program. One key difference is that the Desk offers settled Treasury holdings to the market through its securities lending program, whereas the Desk only rolls unsettled MBS holdings. BIS central bankers’ speeches  5  directive, with the goal of supporting a stronger economic recovery in the context of price stability. References Fleming, Michael (2000). “The Benchmark U.S. Treasury Market: Recent Performance and Possible Alternatives.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, Vol. 6, no. 1 (April): 129–45. Fleming, Michael (2002). “Are Larger Treasury Issues More Liquid? Evidence from Bill Reopenings.” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 34, no. 3 (August): 707–35. Gagnon, Joseph, Matthew Raskin, Julie Remache, and Brian Sack (2010). “Large-Scale Asset Purchases by the Federal Reserve: Did They Work?” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no. 441, March. Hancock, Diana, and Wayne Passmore (2011). “Did the Federal Reserve's MBS Purchase Program Lower Mortgage Rates?” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 58 (July): 498–514. Krishnamurthy, Arvind, and Annette Vissing-Jorgensen (2011). “The Effects of Quantitative Easing on Interest Rates: Channels and Implications for Policy.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, no. 2: 215–65. Li, Canlin, and Min Wei (2012). “Term Structure Modelling with Supply Factors and the Federal Reserve’s Large Scale Asset Purchase Programs.” Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2012–37. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May.