Interactive Brokers (IBKR) Considers Launching a Stablecoin Product for Customers
Elevate Your Investing Strategy:
Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.
One option that is being considered is allowing customers to fund their accounts with stablecoins issued by other financial institutions, if those issuers are considered credible. By integrating stablecoins, Interactive Brokers would be joining other major players entering the digital asset space. Indeed, earlier this month, fintech firm Paxos announced the launch of its Global Dollar stablecoin—which is backed by companies such as Robinhood Markets (HOOD), Mastercard (MA), and Kraken—in the European Union.
Several large U.S. banks have also talked about stablecoins in recent earnings calls by saying that new legislation creates opportunities for digital assets to become more deeply embedded in the financial system. As a result, for investors, this suggests that stablecoins may become a new growth catalyst for financial institutions and are something worth keeping an eye on.
Is IBKR Stock a Good Buy?
Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Strong Buy consensus rating on IBKR stock based on five Buys, one Hold, and zero Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. Furthermore, the average IBKR price target of $67.92 per share implies 3.6% upside potential.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
23 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump admin plans first ‘Golden Dome' test of space-based missile defense system: report
Pentagon officials are aiming to test President Trump's space-based Golden Dome missile defense system to safeguard the US in the fourth quarter of 2028, according to a report. That timeframe lines up with Trump's ambitious goal to 'have it done in three years' and comes amid pitches from defense contractors to score coveted contracts to develop the cutting-edge system. 'They want a win to point to in November [2028],' a defense official told CNN. 'And DoD [Department of Defense] wants to avoid anything they perceive will slow them down.' Advertisement The test, which will be conducted by the Missile Defense Agency, is expected to be called FTI-X, which stands for 'Flight Test Integrated,' in a nod to how it will assess the Golden Dome's vast array of sensors and weapons systems, according to the report. Development of the state-of-the-art missile defense system is expected to cost about $175 billion, according to Trump, who tapped Gen. Michael Guetlein, vice chair of operations at the Space Force, to oversee the ambitious project in May. 4 President Trump wants the US to develop a state-of-the-art missile defense system to protect the homeland from advanced attacks. Getty Images Advertisement 4 The Golden Dome system is intended to safeguard the colossal continental US. AP Congress has already allocated $25 billion in funding for the Golden Dome in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law last month. Military officials have explored space-based missile defense technologies for decades, including during Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program, also known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Space-based missile defense technology can be advantageous because it can help thwart an enemy missile much earlier in its trajectory than other technologies that the US currently has in its arsenal. Advertisement It can also reduce geographical barriers and catch certain types of enemy missiles at a stage when they are slower and easier to intercept. However, there are many drawbacks. The US would need to make significant technological advances to develop that system, which is likely to be very costly and could entice other countries to weaponize space. 4 Skeptics have raised questions about whether the Golden Dome can be completed on time and within the budget President Trump laid out. Getty Images The defense official called it a 'hard problem, and technically very risky,' CNN reported. Advertisement 'The possible number of satellites needed to achieve a probability of engagement success is going to be very high, given the time and area needed to cover the continental United States,' the defense official said. Plans for the test in 2028 are expected to be 'phase one' of the project. A deluge of defense contractors and other private companies have been jockeying for contracts to help develop the massive defense system. Precise details of how the Golden Dome system will function are not fully known. Trump has taken inspiration from Israel's feted Iron Dome system, which helps defend populated areas from short-range attacks. Trump's plans would encompass much more sophisticated missiles, such as ballistic and hypersonic missiles, that may potentially be fired off from much more distant locations than what Iron Dome defends against. 'Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world,' Trump teased in May. 4 Precise details about how the Golden Dome system will function are not clear. Getty Images Guetlein has admitted that the Pentagon faces enormous challenges in successfully completing the project. Advertisement 'I think the real technical challenge will be building of the space-based interceptor,' Guetlein said at a summit last month. 'That technology exists, I believe. I believe we have proven every element of the physics, that we can make it work.' 'What we have not proven is, first, can I do it economically, and then second, can I do it at scale? Can I build enough satellites to get after the threat? Can I expand the industrial base fast enough to build those satellites?' The initiative comes amid advancements in the American space industry, with tycoons such as Elon Musk working to bring down the costs of launching satellites. The Defense Department didn't reply to a request for comment Sunday.
Politico
24 minutes ago
- Politico
Canada's trade minister confident that countries will come to a deal
Trump imposed heightened tariffs on Canada on Thursday. The levies only apply to goods not covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that Trump negotiated in his first term, meaning much of Canada's economy is insulated. Still, Canada's steel and aluminum industries are feeling the heat, with the White House working to revitalize American production capacity. 'We understand and respect totally the President's view in terms of the national security interest,' LeBlanc said. 'In fact, we share it, and what we've said to our American counterparts is, how can we structure the right agreement, where we can both continue to supply one another in a reliable, cost-effective way that preserves jobs essential to the American economy, but the same thing is true, obviously in Canada as well.' Another wrinkle: Trump last week suggested on his social media platform that Carney's pledge to recognize Palestinian statehood could imperil talks, making it 'very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them.' But LeBlanc, who left Washington on Friday after spending much of the week in town meeting with senior White House officials, remains positive. He cites the connective tissue underpinning the two countries' economies as a key reason for hope. 'One description which I thought was very apt: we don't sell things to each other as much as we build things together,' he told Brennan. 'And that's why it's difficult in this relationship when so much is integrated, but we remain very optimistic.'
Forbes
24 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Revision Economy And The Retraction Life
Last Friday, we learned we are less employed than we thought we were. A quarter million jobs vanished, yet no one new was fired and no one new quit. Those jobs never existed in the first place. Only our estimate of the truth changed, not the truth itself. This was definitely a large revision. The two-month downward revision in jobs hadn't been this negative since Covid, and before that, the global financial crisis in October 2008. Before that, it hadn't happened in decades, with only a handful of occurrences in 1979, 1980, and 1982. In response, the US equity market fell between one and two percent and Treasury bond yields collapsed, especially in the front-end, as the market began pricing in a substantially higher expectation of Fed rate cuts. President Trump ordered the firing of the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), citing 'a lengthy history of inaccuracies and incompetence.' Should he have? Revision History Usually, revisions are frequent and fairly modest. The monthly nonfarm payroll report is always revised twice, so there are three numbers: the preliminary estimate, the first revision the following month, and the second revision in the month following that. There are also annual revisions. The average magnitude of the revisions since 1979 are between 40,000 and 60,000 jobs. Sometimes we find out we are more employed than we thought we were, and sometimes less. On Friday, the May 2025 seasonally adjusted estimate was revised down 120,000 jobs from its first estimate and the June 2025 estimate was revised down 133,000 jobs. Each of those was historically extreme, worse than 95% of relevant monthly revisions since 1979. The two-month combination was basically a once-in-a-decade event, as the chart above shows. Big numbers. But ultimately, they are just one source of data. Jobs numbers help us think about the economy, but they are just one piece of the puzzle. What makes job numbers particularly useful is they may be forward-looking: rather than estimating historical consumer purchases, job creation can presage future spending. That's why revisions could matter too. You drive differently if you think your exit is three miles away than if you think it's a quarter mile away. But we can't live our lives in the past, constantly revising what we used to think about ancient history. So, when should a revision of the past change your perspective of the future? Estimates vs. Reality Surely, it should have some effect. One famous quote attributed to John Maynard Keynes summarizes this view: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?' Of course, not all facts matter the same amount or at the same time. Yesterday's future is tomorrow's past. Eventually, other data should matter more than the jobs numbers. If the BLS announced an inadvertent and unnoticed typo in a jobs number from eight years ago, that should presumably have almost no effect on your views today, since so much additional data has already come in, about spending, saving, production, consumption, inflation, and more. In other words, those quarter million jobs either existed or not. Estimates and revisions won't change what actually happened. Even knowing the exact true number is only a proxy for the actual information you would be interested in, and as time has gone on, other data has come out that can be more valuable and important than a more accurate but more historically distant estimate. There is a devastating counterpoint, however, as anyone who has ever been in any kind of personal or professional relationship would know. If a piece of information about the ancient past can change or color your perception of the entire relationship, then almost no amount of time can reduce that emotional impact. In any fight with a loved one, the biggest pain isn't whatever action they did or did not do, or your best estimate of their action, or even the revisions of your best estimates of their actions: it's the possibility that they never loved you at all. Was it all a lie? President Trump's firing of the BLS commissioner may be controversial. But both the administration and its critics worry about the same thing: data ought to be as accurate and objective as possible. This issue is a lot like reading the news. The loud front pages say one thing, usually preliminary news. Later retractions or corrections are quiet and unnoticed. As a society, we can begin to split and live in two different worlds: those that did not know the truth and did not see the retraction, and those that knew the truth or saw the retraction. Therefore, we no longer even have the same facts. Some of us begin to live in the hallucinated, unrevised, unretracted world, a world much like the Mandela effect, where we swear we remember things that in fact never happened. Trust is a fragile thing. A good-faith revision here or a revision there can be fine. But if you notice a consistent bias or pattern in the revisions and retractions, if the errors are rarely in your favor, you may stop subscribing to that source of news or data. If you are in a relationship, you may look to end or fix it. If you are the President of the United States, you may seek a new commissioner. The primary challenge in all these cases is then the same: restore the trust. In the revision economy and the retraction life, beliefs can bend, but faith can snap.
