In his excellent statement of the effectiveness of alternative central government approaches to financing metropolitan public services, Kenneth Davey reaches a conclusion ("so simple that it seems hardly worth stating") that the advantages of different approaches vary over time, depending on the state of central revenues. Davey's conclusion is quite correct and certainly worth stating but, perhaps, not so simple as he suggests. The purpose of this note is to carry this conclusion one step further by discussing the relationship among the revenue buoyancy of intergovernmental transfers, the type of transfer used, and the financial condition of the central government.