One view is that this would be a good thing, because, for the private sector, holding large amounts of low yielding assets in order to guard against occasional spikes in liquidity preference is costly. Arguably, this cost is unnecessary since the central bank can provide liquidity to the system on those occasions as needed, at little cost, against any asset it deems suitable.
On this view, a reduction in “unnecessary” holdings of low yielding liquid assets would lower costs of intermediation and result in a higher real capital stock, raising per capita income over time. But such ready provision of liquidity would trouble many people including, I suspect, most of my central banking forebears.