Oister Global Co-CEO and Co-Founder Rohit Bhayana was quoted in Mint on 9 June 2026, offering his perspective on India’s evolving private markets exit landscape and the growing pressure on fund managers to deliver real cash returns to limited partners.

[TL;DR]

• Only 77 of 139 VC/PE-backed Indian unicorns (valued >$1B by end-2022) have generated a liquidity event
• 26 companies including Dream11 and Apna have no visible path to exit as of June 2026
• West Asia war has slowed IPO pipeline — 7–8 additional unicorn listings delayed, not abandoned
• Secondary markets are emerging as the critical bridge, but the ecosystem remains in early stages

The Shift

India’s startup ecosystem has been celebrated globally for minting unicorns at pace, but it has yet to evolve into one that consistently delivers liquidity events and meaningful cash returns for investors. That gap is now being put to the test. As venture capital and private equity firms that backed Indian startups during the 2018–22 funding boom come under pressure to return capital to their limited partners, the conversation has fundamentally shifted — from billion-dollar valuations to actual exits and distributions. The question is no longer how many unicorns India can create. It is how many can convert paper wealth into real returns.

The Numbers That Prove It

• 139 VC and PE-backed Indian unicorns (valued >$1B by end-2022) analysed by Mint / Tracxn
• 77 have generated a liquidity event — including Swiggy and Zomato
• 44 of those 77 went public; 29 exited via acquisition
• 34 companies including BharatPe, boAt, Moglix, and BrowserStack are pursuing liquidity with IPO plans
• 26 companies including Apna and Dream11 have no visible path to exit as of June 2026
• 2 have shut down entirely
• India e-retail at only 1.6% of GDP vs China’s 13–14% — structural headroom exists, but exit infrastructure lags far behind

The Exit Problem Is Real

India’s startup ecosystem has historically offered fewer exit routes than developed markets, and the data confirms it. Of 139 unicorns created through the 2018–22 boom, only 77 have delivered any form of liquidity event — and even those events don’t automatically translate into LP distributions. In the US, large listed companies routinely acquire venture-backed startups for cash and stock at scale — Google’s $32B acquisition of Wiz, CapitalOne’s $5.2B acquisition of Brex. In India, such large strategic buyers are fewer and have historically executed only small-scale M&A. Without that strategic acquirer layer, IPOs remain the primary — and often only — exit mechanism for technology and consumer internet companies. The consequence: earlier-stage investors stay invested significantly longer than originally modelled, stretching fund lifecycles and delaying LP distributions by months or years even after a successful listing.

Where India’s 139 Unicorns Stand Today

3 Risks to Know

• West Asia Geopolitical Overhang — Market volatility following the West Asia war has slowed IPO preparation pace significantly; EY estimates 7–8 unicorn listings that would have occurred have been delayed, and companies are recalibrating valuation expectations to match a more cautious public market
• The Lock-Up Distribution Problem — Unlike the US where funds can distribute listed shares directly to LPs, Indian regulations require investors to fully monetise holdings before making distributions; the gap between a liquidity event and actual LP cash returns can stretch over years
• Valuation Reset Pressure — Many unicorns that raised capital during the 2020–21 funding boom at peak valuations are now reconciling private marks with public market realities; early unicorn listings that struggled post-IPO have made subsequent issuers more cautious about timing and pricing

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why are so many Indian unicorns struggling to deliver exits?

A: India's exit ecosystem remains structurally less mature than the US primarily because the strategic acquirer layer is thin. Large Indian companies with listed stock as acquisition currency are fewer in number and have historically made small-scale M&A moves. Without robust strategic acquisition activity, IPOs become the default — and only — exit mechanism, concentrating exit risk in public market conditions and regulatory timelines rather than distributing it across multiple exit channels.

Q: What counts as a liquidity event in this analysis?

A: A liquidity event includes an IPO, a merger or acquisition, a founder buyback, or a PE stake sale. It does not include smaller secondary events like employee stake buybacks. Of 139 unicorns analysed, 77 have achieved at least one such event — meaning roughly 44% of India's pre-2023 unicorn cohort has delivered meaningful investor liquidity of any kind.

Q: How is the West Asia war specifically affecting India's IPO pipeline?

A: According to EY's Prashant Singhal, companies are still preparing for IPOs behind the scenes but the pace has slowed materially from earlier in 2026, when multiple companies were initiating IPO preparations weekly. Had current geopolitical conditions not emerged, an estimated 7–8 additional unicorns would have listed over recent months. These are delays, not abandonments — but in a market where LP pressure to return capital is mounting, delays compound fund lifecycle stress.

Q: What role are secondary markets playing in solving the exit problem?

A: Secondary markets are emerging as the critical bridge between venture-stage entry and public market exit — particularly for fund managers facing end-of-lifecycle pressure. Firms like Oister Global and Kenro Capital have launched dedicated secondary funds specifically to absorb stakes from PE and VC funds unable to wait for IPO windows. The secondary ecosystem is growing fast from an early base, with deal value crossing ₹377B in FY25 and H1 of the following year already tracking near that full-year figure.

Q: Why don't IPOs automatically solve the LP distribution problem in India?

A: Two structural reasons. First, investors receive restricted allocations to sell shares during the IPO itself, limiting immediate monetisation. Second, Indian tax and regulatory frameworks — unlike the US — do not permit funds to distribute listed shares in-kind to LPs. Funds must fully monetise holdings through open market sales before distributions can be made. This creates a post-IPO monetisation overhang that can stretch over months or years, particularly for large institutional positions that cannot be liquidated without moving the market.

Q: What should investors use to evaluate fund managers in this environment?

A: According to Oister Global's Rohit Bhayana, investors are increasingly evaluating fund managers based on demonstrated ability to deliver actual cash returns rather than paper valuation marks or fund type. The most important evaluation criteria has shifted to the manager's track record of navigating exits across market cycles — including their use of secondary markets, structured liquidity mechanisms, and timing discipline — rather than simply the vintage performance of their best portfolio companies.