 have generated $0.195 million of net income. Table 1-9 shows that a valuation of 5 times the forward revenue has an IRR of the project at -58 percent. A valuation at 0.5 times the forward revenue has an IRR of -25 percent. To achieve a comparable IRR as in the previous case, the valuation here would have to be 0.11 times the forward revenue. Notice that a metric that stated 3 times the forward net income ($0.117 million) produced prac- tically the same results. In both cases, using the same multiplier of forward net income produced identical results. The problem, though, is that startups generally do not have positive net income for a number of years (typically three to five years); therefore, a metric based on forward revenue (or some more complex formula that takes into account other kinds of value) has to be used. Although there may be a degree of art in valuating a company, such as a startup ELEC or an ISP, there is also a good degree of science, as suggested in the previous example. 1.7 Modeling Parameters This section collects some modeling data that may be useful for the discus- sion at hand. The information comes from dozens of sources including New Paradigm Resources Group, Inc., Vertical Systems, CIR, Cisco Systems, NGN Ventures 2001, market research firms, and has been interpreted by the authors. Table 1-10 provides a gamut of information. Above the black line, we show the entire market for local data services, based on information from New Paradigm Resources Group, Inc. and additional sources and forecast- ing. Note that the growth rate of the bottom line is 30 percent for 2002 to 2003, 28 percent for 2003 to 2004, 26 percent for 2004 to 2005, and 21 per- cent for 2005 to 2006. These percentages are revised by New Paradigm Resources Group, Inc. and are much smaller and conservative than the ones New Paradigm Resources Group, Inc. and the industry were using earlier on. Next, based on data from Vertical Systems, NGN Ventures 2001, and additional sources, the data market is allocated across a low end (