Access, Picking VCs, and Tough Love with Superclusters' David Zhou

David Zhou is an investor in emerging managers, an angel investor, a blogger, and the host of the Superclusters podcast. We talked about how LPs can size up emerging managers, how VCs can stand out, portfolio construction, and which of sourcing, picking, and winning is the most important.

The episode is now available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, and YouTube Music.

Chapters from Access, Picking VCs, and Tough Love with Superclusters' David Zhou

00:04 Intro & David Zhou’s LP / emerging manager lens

02:21 From operator → VC → helping “capital entrepreneurs”

06:44 Marks that matter (and why most EM mark claims are BS)

09:10 How LPs actually think: incentives, pacing, and decision power

13:08 Differentiation that works (sell the strategy, then yourself)

17:21 Naming the elephants: flaws, limitations, and restrictions

24:11 Pre-qualifying LP meetings vs. pitching

27:06 Follow-ons for emerging managers: all-or-none thinking

36:09 LP appetite today & what’s changed post-reset

42:05 Access vs. picking vs. winning (and how to rank them)

46:10 Conventional wisdom David thinks is wrong

Takeaways from Access, Picking VCs, and Tough Love with Superclusters' David Zhou

• LPs don’t buy “top quartile” claims. Marks only matter if you explain how they’re calculated, which round, and what would actually clear today. Hand-wavy performance claims hurt credibility.

• Emerging managers underestimate LP incentives. LPs are constrained by pacing, portfolio construction, internal politics, and career risk—not just return math.

• Fundraising is about fit, not persuasion. The goal of early meetings is to disqualify misaligned LPs quickly, not pitch everyone the same story.

• Differentiate the strategy first, then the GP. LPs need to understand why this market + this approach works before they care about why you are the right person.

• Name your flaws, limitations, and restrictions. Avoiding elephants kills trust; owning constraints (check size, geography, follow-ons) actually sharpens differentiation.

• Access, picking, and winning are distinct skills. Most managers are strong at one, decent at another, and weak at the third—knowing which matters at your fund size is key.

• Follow-ons are an all-or-nothing decision. Half measures often underperform; either reserve meaningfully for winners or accept you’re a pure first-check fund.

• LP/GP alignment beats theoretical optimality. The “best” structure on paper often fails if it doesn’t fit LP expectations, reporting norms, or incentive structures.

• Cold emails can work—if they’re honest. Transparency about what you are and aren’t looking for outperforms polished but generic outreach.

• Emerging managers oversell optionality. Constraints (stage, check size, geography) are features, not bugs—especially for LPs building diversified portfolios.

• Solo GP vs. partnership is less important than clarity. LPs care more about decision-making coherence than org charts.

• Tough love is a gift. Most fundraising advice is too polite; real progress comes from confronting what won’t work as early as possible.

The content here is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal or tax advice. The opinions expressed by guests are their own and do not reflect the views of Seaplane Ventures. Our host, guests and clients may hold investments discussed in this podcast. Please invest responsibly.