> it makes no sense for me to hand them $100 in cash today while I wait a decade for their bonds to mature, just so I can sell them for $100 again. I know the

> it makes no sense for me to hand them $100 in cash today while I wait a decade for their bonds to mature, just so I can sell them for $100 again. I know the Fed and Treasury are different entities but holding a bunch of bonds to essentially themselves is the best case scenario. They would hold both ends of the transaction: the money from the bonds and the bonds themselves (obviously ignoring the fact the liquid money is likely 'at work' somewhere else). The risk at that point to the Fed is limited to only the US financial system failing entirely. 'They' can afford to hold the bonds even in perpetuity because they have no real responsibilities to anyone beyond providing stability. I am not an economist but the risk of either asking for the cash from the Treasury or otherwise doing 'money-magic' to transform the bonds into liquid cash should be basically zero. They would just be fronting themselves money at a 0% interest rate, no one else would be exposed to that 'loan'. Someone else smarter in economics may have to step into explain why this is wrong or bad.