Valuations of companies like Amazon and Flipkart do not follow the normal return-on-capital models.Watching other companies being bought out to make their founders US dollar billionaires is more likely to make me work harder on my start-up, and a widening of the pool of investors, irrespective of their origin, will only make me happier as I am more likely to get a competitive offer.

It is wonderful that foreign investors are pumping in cash into China Temper furnace Suppliers many of these startups.There is also an assumption that Indian start-ups will be able to get larger or better valued funding from foreign investors under a regulatory regime that keeps control with the founders. Walmart has decided a price based on their strategic considerations. That is bound to have an adverse effect on valuations of data-holding companies. Facebook and Twitter are already facing the heat internationally for unauthorised use of customer data.More recently, media reports suggest that the Australian government  is investigating if Google drew data from customers without permission. Ola, in fact, is aggressively following its global expansion strategy. So companies interested in Flipkart’s data alone are unlikely to pay a big price to acquire Flipkart. The number of Indian start-ups is estimated to grow from about 4,200 now to over 11,000 by 2020.These, broadly, cover three aspects: Indian regulatory restrictions, Loss of control to multinationals, and destruction of the Indian start-up ecosystem by greedy "evil foreigners". Flipkart will benefit from Walmart’s deep pockets and its expertise in food, and in offline stores. Where is the data to support such assumptions?Perhaps, the most surprising claim is that of the death of Indian start-ups due to foreign buyouts. It is vast, and growing rapidly.In the aftermath of the purchase of, or investment in, Flipkart by Walmart, a surprising number of laments have sprung up in the media. Even badly designed taxes like the Angel Tax and the attempts to tax the offshore Vodafone deal have not proved to be big deterrents.In other deals like Ola and PayTM, there is no data that suggests that control has been wrested away from the promoters.Another factor, which seems to have been completely missed the media, is the possibility of bigger restrictions on the use of data by companies.Even more ironically, as an outsider, it seems to me that the control brought in by the foreign investors, by bringing their own leadership in Flipkart, helped that company to turn around and become an attractive buy opportunity for Walmart. Flipkart is still in the cash-burning mode. It, therefore, does not make sense to talk of Indian regulatory restrictions at least  in the context of the Flipkart-Walmart deal.

It is probably extremely unlikely that anybody else (except Amazon to deny Walmart entry into India) would have come up with a comparable price.The Indian start-up ecosystem is not dependent on a handful of start-ups. Assuming, as the worst case, that all fast-growing start-ups get investments from abroad, all that will happen is that even more, better start-ups will spring up. So it is wrong to think that external intervention is always bad. If I was an entrepreneur burning cash, I am unlikely to be disheartened by large infusions of cash, foreign or Indian, in other companies.Second, as a corollary to this being a strategic investment, Walmart would have no interest in Flipkart if they did not get control over its operations. They need access to the fast-growing Indian retail market.The writer is a former dean of the Indian School of Business. Why is this any different from FDI, increases in which we celebrate? There is no need for undue pessimism. Whatever be the immediate outcome of these enquiries, it is reasonable to assume that there will be greater control over the use of data collected by companies.