What it means
Before 1792 securities trading in New York happened largely through auctioneers who took a cut and dealt with anyone. The brokers who signed the Buttonwood Agreement wanted to cut the auctioneers out and to stop undercutting each other on price.
The document ran to two clauses: trade only among the signatories, and never charge less than a quarter of 1% commission. It matters historically because it is the moment a loose market became an organised club with rules of membership.
Organised exchanges reduce the cost of finding a counterparty and make prices visible, which is why capital markets tend to develop around them. Nearly every feature of a modern exchange, from membership to listing standards, descends from that basic idea.
It also matters as a clear early example of a cartel. The minimum commission was a price floor agreed between competitors, and fixed commissions survived in some form for well over a century before they were abolished and brokerage became openly competitive.
Reading the agreement honestly means seeing both the useful market structure and the restraint of trade in the same two clauses. The relevance today is in how exchanges still earn money and how their members are still regulated.
A trading venue sells access, reliability and price discovery rather than the securities themselves. When people argue about exchange fees, payment for order flow or the cost of market data, they are arguing about the same question those brokers settled under the tree.
For a non-finance reader the useful takeaway is that markets are institutions, not forces of nature. Somebody wrote the rules, somebody benefits from them, and those rules get rewritten whenever the balance of power or the technology changes.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A history module in a finance induction course uses the Buttonwood Agreement to explain why exchanges exist at all. New analysts compare its two clauses with the rulebook of a modern trading venue that runs to hundreds of pages. The exercise lands the point that market structure is designed, argued over and revised.
Example
A fintech founder pitching a zero commission trading app cites the agreement on an early slide. The argument is that every intermediary defends its pricing floor until a competitor or a regulator removes it, and that the floor in retail broking has now gone. Investors tend to remember the story better than the market sizing.
Example
A competition lawyer training compliance staff uses the 0.25% minimum as a textbook case of horizontal price fixing. The signatories were competitors agreeing a price rather than a technical standard, which is the distinction the training exists to teach. Staff then review their own firm's pricing discussions against that test.
Formula
Calculation
The agreement's only arithmetic is its commission floor: Commission = Trade Value x 0.0025, since 0.25% is a quarter of 1%.
A signatory executing a $40,000 purchase of government bonds for a client would charge at least $40,000 x 0.0025 = $100. On a $250,000 trade the floor would be $250,000 x 0.0025 = $625, and on a small $4,000 order it would be just $10. For comparison, the same 0.25% rate applied to a $1,000,000 institutional order would produce $2,500 of commission for the same amount of work, which explains why a fixed percentage floor became harder and harder to defend as average trade sizes grew.Case study
Seen in the real world.
To see the mechanics, consider Harbour Point Exchange, a deliberately fictional and illustrative commodity venue in a small economy. Eleven brokers handling cocoa contracts agree to deal only with each other and to charge no less than 0.4% commission, reasoning that constant undercutting is making the business unprofitable.
In the first two years the venue works well: prices become visible, settlement failures fall, and volume rises from $60,000,000 to $190,000,000 a year. The commission floor also means that a $500,000 trade costs a client at least $500,000 x 0.004 = $2,000, regardless of how little work it actually involves.
An electronic competitor then offers the same clearing at 0.08%, and Harbour Point's members lose their largest clients first. In this illustrative ending the exchange keeps the membership rules that created the market and abandons the commission floor that had become its weakness, which is broadly the path the real history of fixed commissions took.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Describing the Buttonwood Agreement as the founding of the New York Stock Exchange as an institution, when it was a private pact between brokers that the exchange later grew out of.
- Quoting the minimum commission as 0.25 dollars rather than 0.25%, which turns a percentage floor into a flat fee and changes the economics completely.
- Treating it as a quaint historical curiosity, when the questions it raises about access, membership and fees are live in every market structure debate.
Questions
People also ask.
How many brokers signed the agreement?
Twenty four signatories are recorded, which is why the agreement is often described as the work of two dozen brokers meeting on Wall Street.
What is a buttonwood tree?
It is another name for the American sycamore, and the brokers are traditionally said to have met under one, which is how the agreement got its name.
Do fixed minimum commissions still exist on major exchanges?
No, fixed commissions were abolished and brokerage pricing is now openly competitive, which is a large part of why retail trading costs have fallen so far.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%