Daybreak - Lenskart succeeded where Zomato, Ola stumbled

Episode Date: December 10, 2025

Lenskart is now a public company, and its first real market test just arrived. The shares fell a little over 3% on December 8 as the shareholder lock-in expired, putting the company back in the news and making it a good moment to revisit how it got here. Lenskart ended FY25 with a ₹297 crore in profit and nearly 40 % of that now comes from its 656 stores outside India. That global reach is unusual for an Indian consumer brand, especially when others like Zomato and Ola struggled overseas.The company’s steady expansion strategy has leaned on selective acquisitions, investments and joint ventures. And its real strength is a vertically integrated supply chain that keeps prices tight, speeds up product launches and maintains consistency across markets. With the stock settling into life post-listing, today, we look back at what built Lenskart’s momentum.**This episode was first published on Aug 25, 2025Daybreak is produced from the newsroom of The Ken, India’s first subscriber-only business news platform. Subscribe for more exclusive, deeply-reported, and analytical business stories.

Hi, this is Rohan Dharma Kumar. If you've heard any of the Ken's podcasts, you've probably heard me, my interruptions, my analogies, and my contrarian takes on most topics. And you might rightly be wondering why am I interrupting this episode too. It's for a special announcement. For the last few months, I and Sita Ramon Ganeshan, my colleague and the Ken's deputy editor, have been working on an ambitious new podcast. It's called Intermission.

We want to tell the secret sauce stories of India's greatest companies. Stories of how they were born, how they fought to survive, how they build their organizations and culture, how they manage to innovate and thrive over decades, and most importantly, how they're poised today. To do that, Sita and I have been reading books, poring over reports, going through financial statements, digging up archives, and talking to dozens of people. And if that wasn't enough, we also decided to throw in video into the mix. Yes, you heard that right. Intermission has also had to find its footing in the world of multi-camera shoots in professional studios, laborious editing, and extensive post-production. Sita and I are still reeling from the intensity of our first studio recording.

Intermission launches on March 23rd. To get alert, as soon as we release our first studio. episode, please follow intermission on Spotify and Apple Podcasts or subscribe to the Ken's YouTube channel. You can find all of the links at the ken.com slash I am. With that, back to your episode. You don't spend more than 200 crore rupees without making people notice, especially when you're Puyush Mansell, the founder of Len Scott, India's biggest eyewear brand. Back in July, he made a move that turned heads across the investment world. He quietly bought more than 40 million shares of his own company.

And not just from anyone, these came from the company's marquee backers like SoftBank, Temasek and Kidara Capital. And the kicker? He paid only $52 per share. That was basically just one-tenth of Lenskart's last private valuation. Think about it. He bought low.

And now, as Lenskart gears up for an IPO, expected at $9 to $10 billion of valuation, his stake has grown. From 7% last year to 10.3% today. Buying cheap shares from investors only to sell expensive ones to go public. On paper, that is a dream trade. But this is not just about opportunism. That extra 3.3% gave Bunsell something more than just equity. You see, it pushed him over the 10% threshold

that makes him now, under Indian rules, a promoter. And he is not alone. In December, Ghorov Koshwaha of Bluestone did something similar. He spent 75 crore rupees to push his stake higher. Different amounts, different timing, same goal. Promoter status. So, suddenly, 2025 seems to have become the year of founders cloying back their equity. Dozens of new-age tech IPOs, founders reshaping

their roles and a regulator that, believe it or not, is nudging them in this direction. So here's the big question. Why are India's startup founders who once ran from the promoter tag now fighting to wear it again? Welcome to Daybreak, a business podcast from the Ken. I'm your host, Nikda Sharma, and I don't chase the news cycle. Instead, every day of the week, my colleague Rachel Vargis and I will come to you with one business story that is worth understanding and worth your time. Let's start again with Piyush Buncel.

Lenskart has raised over a billion dollars in the last 15 years. And along the way, investors like SoftBank and Alpha Wave cashed out through secondary exits. So when Bunsell wanted to buy back shares, those same investors were surprisingly open to selling at a discount. If you're wondering why, that is because they had already booked their returns. In Lenskart's case, every investor sold shares in proportion to their holdings. Some founders even negotiate these terms right early on, clauses that allow them to repurchase equity at milestones like an IPO. But even then it is not easy.

One Unicorn founder admitted to the Kens Arundati Ramanathan that he had to fight tooth and kneel to get such terms. And that is what makes Bunsell's deal stand out. The sheer scale, the timing and also the bargain. Compare that with Goroa Koshuaha at Bluestone. He didn't get a discount. He paid $578.78 per share, which is more than Bluestone's IPO price band. And he pushed his stake from 12% to 17%.

Because Sebi, India's regulator, requires promoter groups to hold at least 20%. He and another co-founder had to cross that line. So some founders are buying cheap, others are paying premiums, but the destination is the same. Promoterhood. And here is where things get. interesting. Because only a few years ago, in 2021, Sebi actually tried to move India away from the promoter model. Remember when Ptm, Policy Bazaar and Nica went public? Back then, Sebi said that companies could list without an identifiable promoter. Ownership, they argued, was shifting

to institutions and professional managers. The promoter family archetype was supposed to fade away and founders loved it. No promoter meant fewer rules, less disclosure, and the freedom to still receive ESOPs, those lucrative stock options. But then, pay-tm happened. Its rocky post-IPO journey rattled everyone. By 2024, Seby had flipped.

It wanted accountability. If you are the face of a company, you should be the ones that investors can hold responsible when things go wrong. So now founders are leaning in, buying back equity, pushing past the 10% mark and claiming the promoter tag that Sebi seems to want them to wear. Stay tuned for more on this. Of course, not everybody thinks that this is a good thing. One founder-turned investor was blunt. He called it a wrong habit. And his point was that if you diluted heavily while raising money, that was the trade-off. You get the benefit of capital, but buying back should.

later at a discount just before an IPO shifts the cost onto new investors. In his words, it sets a bad precedent. It's not like he was criticizing people like Kushwaha at Bluestone who paid above the IPO price, or even Ritesh Agarwal of Oyo, who famously spent $2 billion to rebuild his stake. Painful may be reckless, but at least not cheap. The criticism is aimed squarely at the bunsels of the world, who managed to scoop up equity at fractions of the company's last valuation. And yet, these deals keep happening.

Because the incentives are stacked that way. Investors who already took money off the table are willing to sell cheap if it smooths the road to IPO. Founders, meanwhile, regain control and the title of promoter. But the promoter status is not free. As tax consultant, Ajay Roti explained to my colleague Arundati, it comes with cost. costs. More disclosure, lock-ins of at least 18 months and no ESOPs, the very stock options

that many founders prized the most. One Unicorn founder even said, even if I had more than 10% stake, I wouldn't have chosen to list as a promoter-run company. With ESOPs, the upside was better. So, why are some still doing it? Two reasons. One, Sebi has softened the rules. Founders who became promoters can now retain ESOPs granted a year before filing IPO papers. And two, Sebi itself is nudging companies. Draft IPOs with identifiable promoters actually get faster approvals. Then, there is also the shadow of PTM. When Vijayshaker Sharma cut his stake below 10% and awarded himself 21 million ESOPs,

Seby stepped in. It suspended the grant, find him, and sent a clear signal. It was not comfortable with no promoter IPOs. Since then, the regulator has leaned harder on the promoter model because promoter classification is the backbone of its rulebook. It governs related party deals, insider trading, disclosures and takeover rules. Without a promoter, a founder could sidestep these checks. That is why investors too are stepping aside.

None of them want the liabilities of being tagged promoter. Better to let the founder take it. Some even joke that they would give away shares for free to avoid that responsibility. So here we are. Founders like Bansal and Koshwaha are leaning into promoterhood. Regulators are encouraging it and investors are not resisting. And at the end of it all, the market gets what the market wants. A clear neck to catch.

Because for all the debates about valuations, buybacks and ESOPs, one thing is clear. Public investors want to know. that when a company lists, the founder is still championing the vision. Not just on day one, but long after the road show is over. Daybreak is produced from the newsroom of the Ken, India's first subscriber-focused business news platform. What you're listening to is just a small sample of our subscriber-only offerings. A full subscription unlocks daily long-form feature stories, newsletters and podcast extras. To subscribe, head to the Ken.com and click on the red subscribe.

button on top of the Ken website. Today's episode was hosted by Snikda Sharma and edited by Rajiv CN.