Michael Boehlje and Steven Griffin (BG) provide a timely, relevant analysis of the financial impacts of U.S. government price programs that is rigorous in its use of valuation concepts under risk, practical in its simulation approach, and clearly in the spirit of responding to needs for policy-related research. Their major objective is to evaluate how price support programs influence investment and financing behavior of agricultural producers with different financial characteristics and sizes of operation. They reason that indexed support prices will provide greater certainty in farmers' cash flows and thereby reduce financial risks, with more rapid farm growth resulting from increased bid prices for durable assets, especially land, increased debt capacity, and higher financial leverage. Their simulation analyses for farms differing in size, capital structure, and farmer characteristics under selected parameter values indicate that smaller, more highly leveraged operations generally will receive fewer benefits from a cost-of-production-indexed price support program than will larger operations with lower financial leverage. As a result larger, higher-equity operations can bid higher prices for land and should show more rapid growth in net worth, land ownership, and standard of living. The authors conclude with a plea that future analyses more fully account for policy impacts on farms with different financial, economic, and producer characteristics. My response to this kind of analyses is quite positive and I fully support BG's efforts. My comments here consist of two sets of concerns whose resolution should further clarify their analytical approach, strengthen the generality of their results, and perhaps provide for extended analysis. One set of concerns addresses the need for more information to understand fully the specifications and assumptions embodied in their simulation model. The second set, which is closely related to the first, considers how the initial estimates of bid prices for land might respond to changes in some of these model specifications and assumptions. While Boehlje and Griffin attribute much of their results to differences in farms' financial characteristics and debt-servicing capacity, I suspect that the interrelationships of those financial characteristics with the influences of several other factors are more impor