India’s booming start-up ecosystem is triggering a surge of initial public offerings (IPOs) as recently fledgling companies aim to tap public markets, but analysts and investors are increasingly scrutinising how and why these listings are being conducted amid mounting concerns over valuation discipline and long-term returns. As some marquee players skim the “unicorn” pot, questions mount about who is truly benefitting, how this momentum is being sustained and whether the current pricing regime is built for sustainable growth.
A surge in listings driven by exit-urgency and capital-market readiness
Over the past 24 months, India’s start-up ecosystem has shifted from private-funding drought to public-market flood. Dozens of technology and consumer-oriented firms have filed for IPOs or completed listings, signalling that early-stage investors and founders see public markets as the key exit point. The rush can be traced back to multiple forces. First, a long “funding winter” had built up an exit backlog—venture-capital players sought liquidity while companies matured enough to contemplate IPOs.
Second, macro conditions improved: buoyant equity markets, stronger retail participation, digital payment linkages and regulatory plumbing (including streamlined listing rules) provided readiness for public issuance. Third, large new-age companies built scale—both in revenue and brand—and could credibly access the public route, turning self-sustaining private growth engines into investable IPO candidates.
The result is a listing frenzy where valuations have soared in some cases. One prominent firm raised over US$800 million in its public offering despite issuing at a multiple of more than 230 times its projected earnings—a figure that triggered commentary about “structurally high” valuations in India’s new-age companies. While some of these IPOs have delivered sizable gains for their early-backer investors and founders, the layering of retail, mutual-fund and insurer money behind the scenes signals a new chapter—one where public-market access is becoming integrated into the start-up lifecycle rather than a distant prospect.
Why valuations are at the heart of the debate
The key question at this juncture is *why* valuations have become such a critical concern—and how that may shape the IPO wave ahead. Several inter-linked mechanisms explain this dynamic. First, the pricing of new listings has been buoyed by abundant liquidity: domestic mutual funds and retail investors are increasingly channelled through online platforms (e.g., UPI mandates), enabling quicker access and higher participation. With strong demand for tech-centric stories, IPOs often launch at high multiples before true public-market vetting.
Second, there is an expectation that scale equals value—many companies emphasise growth over profitability and elevate long-term addressable-market narrative rather than near-term cash flows. This approach lifts valuations but raises risk if business models cannot deliver. Third, regulatory and institutional reforms have made it easier for start-ups to list and for retail investors to participate—but the speed of listing sometimes outpaces the establishment of strong governance or proven earnings, leaving potential for disconnect between listing price and sustainable value.
Additionally, valuation discipline is under pressure because foundational norms are shifting. For example, the regulator has publicly urged merchant banks to practise “realistic pricing” for IPOs in order to avoid eroding retail-investor confidence, suggesting a recognition that some recent listings may have been overly exuberant. Meanwhile, tracking of outcomes shows mixed results: data on Indian start-up IPOs from recent years indicate that while some companies delivered multibagger returns, a substantial portion has under-performed or traded flat—highlighting the importance of pricing relative to fundamentals. The imbalance here is that early-stage investors may realise gains, but new public investors may not enjoy the same upside if the valuation ladder is already over-extended.
How the current ecosystem fuels and constrains the boom
The mechanics of how this IPO wave is unfolding shed further light on why it has momentum—and why it may also face hurdles. On the supply side, many start-ups that reached high valuations in private rounds saw the public route as a logical next step, especially as secondary exits through private markets became harder to access.
Listing provides liquidity for founders and early backers, while enabling broader institutional ownership of high-growth assets. On the demand side, retail and institutional investors are keen to access new-age companies previously restricted to venture funds, generating high subscription rates and listing “pop” potential. For instance, some recent IPOs were oversubscribed many times over, demonstrating investor appetite.
However, constraints are emerging: investor selectiveness is increasing, especially given instances of IPOs with weak post-listing performance. Reports indicate that while hundreds of IPOs were filed, a meaningful share are trading below issue price within short intervals. Beyond valuations, issues such as thin profitability, business-model risk, stiff competition and regulatory uncertainty (in fintech, ed-tech, delivery platforms) raise the bar for public-market readiness. For start-ups, the path to IPO is no longer simply about scale, but about durability—whether the business can convert growth into margins, govern itself for public scrutiny, and withstand investor expectation.
Strategic implications for founders, investors and markets
The “how” of this shifting ecosystem has several strategic implications. For founders, the race to list must now be aligned not just with brand and growth, but governance, financial discipline and credible public story-telling. Companies that cannot demonstrate sustainable cash-flows, strong unit economics or a clear path to profitability may find the public market’s spotlight harsher than private rounds.
For investors—especially retail and mutual funds—the wave offers access to start-up gains but also exposes them to “Valuation-Risk” if they invest near the top of a pricing cycle without structural backing. This has renewed focus on fundamentals rather than hype, and suggests that second-tier listings may need to show sharper metrics to succeed.
For markets, the rise of start-up IPOs reshapes the composition of new-issue flows, pushing equity-markets into higher-growth, higher-volatility territory. While this may boost innovation and deepen capital markets, it also raises concerns around retail protection and listing integrity—especially if valuations are not grounded. The regulator’s role becomes important in ensuring disclosure and pricing norms reflect long-term investor interest. If excessive exuberance leads to post-listing under-performance, it may damp future issuance and investor sentiment.
Why the current moment may test the sustainability of the wave
Finally, the underlying structural “why” suggests that while a wave is under way, sustaining it will be more challenging. The early-stage funding boom of recent years inflated valuations considerably, and as capital becomes somewhat scarcer, listing candidates will compete harder on metrics beyond growth.
Moreover, macro-economic headwinds—such as inflation, interest-rate rises and global trade risks—create less forgiving environments for nascent public companies. In India, where private-fund cash flows are still below the peaks of 2021, start-ups may face tougher conditions in both capital-raising and public-market performance. Indeed, data show the overall fund-raise by tech start-ups dropped to around US$9.8 billion in 2025, down from US$40 billion in 2021—indicating the ecosystem is shifting from quantity to quality.
As listing volumes escalate, market scrutiny, governance norms, investor literacy and valuation realism will continue to rise. The success of this start-up-IPO wave thus hinges not only on how many companies list, but why they list, how they price themselves and whether they can deliver post-listing resilience. In short, the public-markets fire-up of India’s start-ups is less about sheer volume and more about sustainable transformation from private-growth stories to public-market winners.
(Source:www.bbc.com)
A surge in listings driven by exit-urgency and capital-market readiness
Over the past 24 months, India’s start-up ecosystem has shifted from private-funding drought to public-market flood. Dozens of technology and consumer-oriented firms have filed for IPOs or completed listings, signalling that early-stage investors and founders see public markets as the key exit point. The rush can be traced back to multiple forces. First, a long “funding winter” had built up an exit backlog—venture-capital players sought liquidity while companies matured enough to contemplate IPOs.
Second, macro conditions improved: buoyant equity markets, stronger retail participation, digital payment linkages and regulatory plumbing (including streamlined listing rules) provided readiness for public issuance. Third, large new-age companies built scale—both in revenue and brand—and could credibly access the public route, turning self-sustaining private growth engines into investable IPO candidates.
The result is a listing frenzy where valuations have soared in some cases. One prominent firm raised over US$800 million in its public offering despite issuing at a multiple of more than 230 times its projected earnings—a figure that triggered commentary about “structurally high” valuations in India’s new-age companies. While some of these IPOs have delivered sizable gains for their early-backer investors and founders, the layering of retail, mutual-fund and insurer money behind the scenes signals a new chapter—one where public-market access is becoming integrated into the start-up lifecycle rather than a distant prospect.
Why valuations are at the heart of the debate
The key question at this juncture is *why* valuations have become such a critical concern—and how that may shape the IPO wave ahead. Several inter-linked mechanisms explain this dynamic. First, the pricing of new listings has been buoyed by abundant liquidity: domestic mutual funds and retail investors are increasingly channelled through online platforms (e.g., UPI mandates), enabling quicker access and higher participation. With strong demand for tech-centric stories, IPOs often launch at high multiples before true public-market vetting.
Second, there is an expectation that scale equals value—many companies emphasise growth over profitability and elevate long-term addressable-market narrative rather than near-term cash flows. This approach lifts valuations but raises risk if business models cannot deliver. Third, regulatory and institutional reforms have made it easier for start-ups to list and for retail investors to participate—but the speed of listing sometimes outpaces the establishment of strong governance or proven earnings, leaving potential for disconnect between listing price and sustainable value.
Additionally, valuation discipline is under pressure because foundational norms are shifting. For example, the regulator has publicly urged merchant banks to practise “realistic pricing” for IPOs in order to avoid eroding retail-investor confidence, suggesting a recognition that some recent listings may have been overly exuberant. Meanwhile, tracking of outcomes shows mixed results: data on Indian start-up IPOs from recent years indicate that while some companies delivered multibagger returns, a substantial portion has under-performed or traded flat—highlighting the importance of pricing relative to fundamentals. The imbalance here is that early-stage investors may realise gains, but new public investors may not enjoy the same upside if the valuation ladder is already over-extended.
How the current ecosystem fuels and constrains the boom
The mechanics of how this IPO wave is unfolding shed further light on why it has momentum—and why it may also face hurdles. On the supply side, many start-ups that reached high valuations in private rounds saw the public route as a logical next step, especially as secondary exits through private markets became harder to access.
Listing provides liquidity for founders and early backers, while enabling broader institutional ownership of high-growth assets. On the demand side, retail and institutional investors are keen to access new-age companies previously restricted to venture funds, generating high subscription rates and listing “pop” potential. For instance, some recent IPOs were oversubscribed many times over, demonstrating investor appetite.
However, constraints are emerging: investor selectiveness is increasing, especially given instances of IPOs with weak post-listing performance. Reports indicate that while hundreds of IPOs were filed, a meaningful share are trading below issue price within short intervals. Beyond valuations, issues such as thin profitability, business-model risk, stiff competition and regulatory uncertainty (in fintech, ed-tech, delivery platforms) raise the bar for public-market readiness. For start-ups, the path to IPO is no longer simply about scale, but about durability—whether the business can convert growth into margins, govern itself for public scrutiny, and withstand investor expectation.
Strategic implications for founders, investors and markets
The “how” of this shifting ecosystem has several strategic implications. For founders, the race to list must now be aligned not just with brand and growth, but governance, financial discipline and credible public story-telling. Companies that cannot demonstrate sustainable cash-flows, strong unit economics or a clear path to profitability may find the public market’s spotlight harsher than private rounds.
For investors—especially retail and mutual funds—the wave offers access to start-up gains but also exposes them to “Valuation-Risk” if they invest near the top of a pricing cycle without structural backing. This has renewed focus on fundamentals rather than hype, and suggests that second-tier listings may need to show sharper metrics to succeed.
For markets, the rise of start-up IPOs reshapes the composition of new-issue flows, pushing equity-markets into higher-growth, higher-volatility territory. While this may boost innovation and deepen capital markets, it also raises concerns around retail protection and listing integrity—especially if valuations are not grounded. The regulator’s role becomes important in ensuring disclosure and pricing norms reflect long-term investor interest. If excessive exuberance leads to post-listing under-performance, it may damp future issuance and investor sentiment.
Why the current moment may test the sustainability of the wave
Finally, the underlying structural “why” suggests that while a wave is under way, sustaining it will be more challenging. The early-stage funding boom of recent years inflated valuations considerably, and as capital becomes somewhat scarcer, listing candidates will compete harder on metrics beyond growth.
Moreover, macro-economic headwinds—such as inflation, interest-rate rises and global trade risks—create less forgiving environments for nascent public companies. In India, where private-fund cash flows are still below the peaks of 2021, start-ups may face tougher conditions in both capital-raising and public-market performance. Indeed, data show the overall fund-raise by tech start-ups dropped to around US$9.8 billion in 2025, down from US$40 billion in 2021—indicating the ecosystem is shifting from quantity to quality.
As listing volumes escalate, market scrutiny, governance norms, investor literacy and valuation realism will continue to rise. The success of this start-up-IPO wave thus hinges not only on how many companies list, but why they list, how they price themselves and whether they can deliver post-listing resilience. In short, the public-markets fire-up of India’s start-ups is less about sheer volume and more about sustainable transformation from private-growth stories to public-market winners.
(Source:www.bbc.com)
Homepage
Send to a friend
Printable version
Share
