GoldenBasis

What do they actually do

GoldenBasis builds software that automates the receiving side of brokerage account transfers. It provides an intake flow where a customer or rep uploads the outgoing account statement, uses AI to extract and validate fields, and submits transfer requests with fewer errors. Operations teams get modern tools to resolve exceptions and a status view that support or clients can check without back‑and‑forth calls (YC launch).

Under the hood, the product integrates with industry infrastructure (e.g., DTCC), supports APIs and webhooks, and is designed to handle multiple transfer types and asset classes (ACAT and non‑ACAT; mutual funds, equities, ETFs, options, fixed income, alternatives, annuities, etc.) so updates can flow into a firm’s internal systems (Crunchbase). Today the company is early, running pilots or early deployments focused on reducing rejects and speeding up transfers in a space where large volumes move and delays are common (YC launch, SIFMA guidance).

Who are their target customer(s)

• Receiving-brokerage operations manager: Teams spend hours re‑keying statement data, fixing small errors that trigger rejects, and reconciling mismatches. They need automation on intake, validation, and exception handling to cut delays and reduce support volume (YC launch, SIFMA guidance).
• Self‑clearing brokerage operations lead: Handling many transfer types and asset classes while tying into DTCC and internal systems creates backlogs and compliance risk when data doesn’t line up. They want fewer manual touchpoints and reliable integrations/APIs into clearing workflows (Crunchbase, YC launch).
• RIA or advisor office manager: Transfers feel slow and opaque, with repetitive paperwork and limited status visibility, which frustrates clients and consumes staff time. They want a simple intake and clear progress updates to avoid chasing errors (YC launch, ACATS explainer).
• Brokerage customer‑support lead: Support faces many transfer‑status inquiries but must rely on legacy screens or operations, leading to long wait times and handoffs. A shared status view and fewer exceptions would reduce tickets and callbacks (YC launch).
• CTO / platform engineer at a brokerage: Integrating homegrown back‑office stacks with external transfer messages is brittle. They need API‑first tooling and webhooks that keep books & records in sync and adapt to DTCC changes without large rewrites (Crunchbase).

How would they acquire their first 10, 50, and 100 customers

• First 10: Run paid 4–8 week pilots with mid‑market brokerages and self‑clearing firms sourced via founder/YC networks, proving reduced re‑keying and exception volume with before/after metrics (YC launch).
• First 50: Use pilot case studies to target similar ops managers and CTOs via outbound, LinkedIn, and SIFMA events; add a simple channel with back‑office consultants and clearing partners that includes a referral incentive (SIFMA guidance).
• First 100: Productize integrations and onboarding for common brokerage platforms; expose APIs/webhooks and a lower‑touch tier for RIAs while keeping enterprise services for larger firms; turn channel partners into resellers and use customer references to expand (Crunchbase).

What is the rough total addressable market

Top-down context:

Brokerage transfers are large and error‑prone: industry sources cite over $90B moved monthly with a meaningful share delayed, underscoring the scope for automation and operations tooling (YC launch, SIFMA guidance).

Bottom-up calculation:

Focus on mid‑to‑large receiving brokerages and self‑clearing firms globally: assume 500–800 target firms with average annual spend of $80k–$200k for transfer intake/automation and integrations, implying a $40M–$160M ARR TAM for the transfers module, with potential upside if expanded into broader back‑office workflows.

Assumptions:

• Targetable firms limited to those with meaningful inbound transfer volume (mid‑market and up, globally).
• Average contract value includes platform plus usage‑based components; enterprise deals skew higher.
• Scope here is the transfers module only; expanding to broader back‑office could materially increase TAM.

Who are some of their notable competitors

• Broadridge: Incumbent provider of middle/back‑office and transfer‑agent systems used by broker‑dealers; offers post‑trade and transfer workflows that include ACATS and related processes (site).
• FIS: Enterprise post‑trade stack (Securities Processing Suite) and global transfer‑agency solutions used by brokerages and asset managers for settlement, reconciliation, and transfer workflows (site).
• Plaid (Investments Move): API‑first product that helps automate ACATS/transfer intake, validation, and orchestration for fintechs and brokerages to reduce paperwork and rejections (site).
• Apex Fintech Solutions / Apex Clearing: Custody/clearing provider with ACATS tooling, real‑time simulators, and APIs/webhooks to integrate transfer status into a brokerage’s operations stack (site).
• Equisoft (Altus Transfer Gateway): Specialist transfer‑automation platform covering end‑to‑end account and asset transfers (intake, automation, reconciliation) across multiple asset types (site).