Why Are Your Year-End Shipments So Expensive and Slow? A Deep Dive into International Logistics’ “Year-End Syndrome”

Every fourth quarter, cross-border e-commerce sellers face a logistics “final exam”: the freight for a 40-foot high cube container doubles in three months, ports are piled high with containers, and goods that usually arrive in 15 days are delayed until 45 days… This dilemma of “being both expensive and slow” is known in the industry as the international logistics “Year-End Syndrome.” In 2025, this phenomenon is particularly severe: the shipping rate for 40HC containers on the US route soared from \(2,000 in March to nearly \)7,000, the utilization rate of container storage areas at the Port of Los Angeles once exceeded 92%, and some low-value goods even fell into the awkward situation where “freight costs exceed product value.” Behind this cyclical crisis lies deep-seated industry contradictions driven by supply-demand imbalance, resource misallocation, and external variables, whose impact has spread from the logistics link to the entire chain of sellers’ profits, platform operations, and consumer experience.

I. Three Typical Symptoms of “Year-End Syndrome”: The Industry Dilemma Revealed by Data

The international logistics “Year-End Syndrome” is not an outbreak of a single problem, but a systematic predicament centered on “skyrocketing prices, delayed timeliness, and warehouse congestion.” Its wide-ranging impact and long duration have become the key bottleneck restricting cross-border e-commerce performance at the end of the year.

(1) Skyrocketing Prices: The “Butterfly Effect” of Out-of-Control Costs

The irrational rise in logistics costs is the most intuitive manifestation of the “Year-End Syndrome.” In the third quarter of 2025, shipping rates on major global cross-border logistics routes surged collectively: the US West route increased by 230% year-on-year, the European route by 180%, and the Southeast Asian route by more than 80%. This increase is not linear but shows a “stepwise jump” characteristic—often due to a port congestion or a capacity adjustment, shipping rates can rise by 30%-50% within a week.

What is more noteworthy is the phenomenon of “imbalanced cost transmission”: on the one hand, the explicit costs of logistics companies (fuel, labor, port fees) only increased by 20%-30%, but the terminal shipping rate increased far beyond this proportion; on the other hand, the cost pressure borne by sellers of different categories varies greatly. The proportion of logistics costs for high-value 3C products rose from 15% to 25%, still maintaining profitability; while for daily necessities with a unit price of less than $5, the proportion of logistics costs even exceeded 60%, forcing some sellers to suspend orders. Behind this differentiation is the market choice of logistics resources tilting towards high-profit orders, which further exacerbates the survival pressure of small and medium-sized sellers.

(2) Delayed Timeliness: The Concentrated Outbreak of Whole-Chain Bottlenecks

If skyrocketing prices are a “monetary loss,” then delayed timeliness is an “opportunity loss.” At the end of 2025, the timeliness of major global cross-border logistics routes generally doubled or tripled: the timeliness of China-US express sea freight extended from 12-15 days to 35-45 days, the transportation time of China-Europe Railway increased from 20 days to 38 days, and even the fastest international express delivery experienced a delay of 5-7 days.

The essence of delay is the “superposition of whole-chain bottlenecks”: at the departure end, the problem of “difficulty in booking containers” for freight forwarders is prominent, and some sellers need to pay a 20%-30% premium to lock in container space; at the transportation end, the route detour after the Red Sea crisis increased the voyage by 5-7 days, and the rise in fuel costs further compressed capacity supply; at the destination end, the waiting time for container unloading at hub ports such as the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Rotterdam extended from the conventional 2-3 days to 10-15 days, and the warehousing facilities around the ports were full. After the goods arrived at the port, they could not be picked up in a timely manner, forming a vicious circle of “congestion upon arrival.”

(3) Warehouse Congestion: The “Intestinal Obstruction” at the End of the Supply Chain

Warehouses are the “last mile” of the logistics chain and the hardest-hit area for year-end congestion. In October 2025, the scheduled warehousing time for Amazon’s US Western FBA warehouses was scheduled for 15 days later, the capacity utilization rate of third-party overseas warehouses generally exceeded 95%, and some warehouses even suspended receiving new goods. This congestion is not simply a “lack of space,” but an efficiency imbalance in the entire process of “warehousing – sorting – outbound.”

In the warehousing link, the delay in picking up containers at the port leads to the concentrated arrival of goods at the warehouse. The warehouse’s receiving capacity is insufficient, and some goods have to wait in the parking lot for 3-5 days before being warehoused; in the sorting link, the gap of temporary labor at the end of the year reaches 30%, the efficiency of manual sorting decreases, and the order processing cycle extends from 48 hours to 72 hours; in the outbound link, the tight express delivery capacity leads to the failure of timely delivery after goods are outbound, and the backlog of pending delivery goods in some overseas warehouses reaches 4 times the daily level. This predicament of “unable to enter and unable to exit” has turned overseas warehouses from “inventory replenishment guarantees” into “inventory traps.”

II. Tracing the Root Causes: Four Core Factors Contributing to “Year-End Syndrome”

The formation of the international logistics “Year-End Syndrome” is not an accidental market fluctuation, but an inevitable result of the mismatch between the rapid development of cross-border e-commerce and the carrying capacity of the logistics system, as well as the interweaving of structural industry contradictions and external variables.

(1) Supply-Demand Imbalance: The Contradiction Between Explosive Demand and Rigid Supply

The explosive growth of cross-border e-commerce is the core driver of the “Year-End Syndrome.” In 2024, the scale of China’s cross-border e-commerce market reached 10.8 trillion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 25.8%, of which the logistics market scale reached 2.16 trillion yuan. The overlap of year-end promotional nodes such as “Black Friday,” “Cyber Monday,” and “Christmas” has led to a 3-5 fold surge in order volume in the fourth quarter compared with daily, forming a “pulsating demand.”

However, logistics supply has a natural “rigid characteristic”: the construction cycle of core resources such as ships, aircraft, and port facilities is as long as 3-5 years, and it is impossible to quickly expand capacity according to demand in the short term. In 2025, major global shipping companies reduced their capacity by 15% due to early tariff expectations. When demand rebounded in the second half of the year, the lag in capacity adjustment led to a 30% gap in container space, directly triggering a “container space rush.” This contradiction of “large demand elasticity and small supply elasticity” erupts concentratedly at the end of the year, becoming the fundamental cause of skyrocketing shipping rates and delayed timeliness.

(2) Resource Misallocation: Structural Defects in the Industry Ecosystem

The misallocation of resources in the logistics industry has further amplified the year-end supply-demand contradiction. From the perspective of route layout, the capacity of popular routes such as the US West and Europe accounts for 70%, while the capacity supply in emerging markets such as Southeast Asia and the Middle East is insufficient, leading to overcrowding of popular routes and high logistics costs in emerging markets. From the perspective of the main structure, small and medium-sized freight forwarders account for more than 60% of the market share. These enterprises lack stable container space resources and can only maintain operations by snatching containers at high prices at the end of the year, which further pushes up market shipping rates.

More seriously, there is “imbalanced inventory management”: some sellers lack scientific inventory planning and blindly stock up before promotional nodes, leading to a surge in inventory of a single category and occupying a large amount of warehousing and transportation resources; while other sellers face stockouts in the middle of the peak season due to insufficient stockpiling, missing sales opportunities. This predicament of “either overstocking to block logistics or understocking to miss the market” reflects the insufficient coordination between cross-border e-commerce and the logistics system.

(3) External Variables: The Impact of Geopolitical Conflicts and Emergencies

In recent years, geopolitical conflicts and emergencies have become important external factors exacerbating the “Year-End Syndrome.” In 2025, the Red Sea crisis continued to ferment, forcing 12% of global maritime trade routes to detour around the Cape of Good Hope, increasing the voyage by 5,000 nautical miles, extending shipping time by 5-7 days, and increasing fuel costs by 20%. At the same time, adjustments in trade policies of some countries have also brought uncertainties: the strengthened inspection by US Customs has extended customs clearance time by 3-5 days, and the reform of European value-added tax has increased logistics compliance costs. These variables have made the already tense year-end logistics worse.

In addition, extreme weather has become an undeniable influencing factor. In November 2025, the west coast of North America was hit by rare heavy rains, and the Port of Los Angeles was temporarily closed for 2 days, resulting in the detention of nearly 100 container ships and further exacerbating the backlog of goods. The frequent occurrence of such “black swan” events has exposed the insufficient risk resistance capacity of the international logistics system.

(4) Operational Bottlenecks: Efficiency Shortcomings in the Logistics Chain

The operational efficiency shortcomings of the logistics chain are the direct inducement of the “Year-End Syndrome.” At the port operation level, the automation rate of hub ports such as the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach is only 30%, far lower than 70% of the Port of Singapore and the Port of Rotterdam. The low efficiency of manual operations leads to slow cargo turnover; at the warehousing management level, some overseas warehouses still adopt traditional manual sorting models, lacking intelligent warehousing system support, and their order processing capacity cannot cope with the peak season; at the information coordination level, the data between logistics enterprises, sellers, and platforms is not smooth, leading to delayed tracking of order status and failure to respond to abnormal situations in a timely manner.

Taking the customs clearance link as an example, due to the lack of professional compliance knowledge of some sellers and non-standard customs declaration documents, the probability of goods being inspected by customs increases by 30%, and the inspection time extends from the conventional 1-2 days to 5-7 days. Such delays caused by “human factors” often produce chain reactions when the logistics pressure is greatest at the end of the year, further amplifying the congestion effect.

III. Solutions: A Three-Dimensional Approach from Emergency Loss Control to Long-Term Layout

Faced with the international logistics “Year-End Syndrome,” cross-border sellers cannot passively endure, but should build a three-dimensional solution of “short-term emergency loss control, mid-term optimization and upgrading, and long-term ecological co-construction” to transform logistics bottlenecks into competitive advantages.

(1) Short-Term Emergency: 72-Hour Loss Control Strategy to Safeguard Performance Bottom Line

When a logistics crisis has already erupted, the core goal is to “stop losses and protect orders” by flexibly adjusting strategies to reduce direct losses.

Channel Combination: Fast-Slow Matching to Solve Timeliness Dilemma. Adopt a split-order model of “emergency replenishment + regular replenishment”: for high-value, high-turnover 3C products and beauty products, prioritize international express channels such as DHL and FedEx IP. Although the cost is as high as $4.2-6.3 per kilogram, the 3-6 day timeliness can quickly restore the sellable status of Listings, avoiding ranking drops due to stockouts. During Black Friday 2023, after encountering sea freight warehouse congestion, a Guangzhou-based clothing seller shipped 30% of its inventory via FedEx IP. Although the logistics cost increased by 25,000 yuan, sales resumed within 5 days, and achieved 800,000 yuan in sales during Black Friday, far exceeding the losses of simply waiting for sea freight.

For mid-to-low value products or long-term inventory needs, overtime ship resources of sea freight express such as Matson and ZIM can be selected. The cost is only 1/3 of international express ($1.1-1.8 per kilogram), and although the timeliness is 3-5 days slower than conventional express ships, it can supplement inventory while controlling costs. In addition, the “niche route + transshipment” model is also worth trying: when European routes are congested, goods can be transshipped to Southeast Asian routes via the Port of Singapore. Although the timeliness increases by 5 days, the cost can be reduced by 15%, effectively diverting transportation pressure.

Overseas Warehouse Activation: Unleashing the Buffering Role of Redundant Inventory. Overseas warehouses are a “lifesaver” for year-end logistics. Deploying 30% of peak season inventory to overseas warehouses in target countries (such as Los Angeles Warehouse in the US and Hamburg Warehouse in Germany) in advance allows direct transfer from overseas warehouses to Amazon FBA or platform warehouses during logistics congestion. The timeliness is 5-10 days faster than shipping from China, and the stockout rate can be reduced from 30% to below 8%. Taking the Los Angeles Warehouse in the US as an example, the regular storage fee is \(0.5-1 per cubic meter per day, the transfer to Amazon ONT8 Warehouse only takes 1-3 days, and the single transfer fee is \)2-3. For best-selling products, this investment can bring stable inventory supply and sales rankings.

At the same time, using the return processing function of overseas warehouses can reduce reverse logistics losses. By cooperating with third-party return warehouses such as ReturnHelper, customer returns can be re-inspected and refurbished, and then directly re-listed for sale through overseas warehouses, avoiding the high freight and time costs of cross-border returns. In 2023, a home goods seller reduced the return loss rate from 20% to 5% through this model, recovering an additional 150,000 yuan in sales.

Rule Application: Proactively Avoiding Platform Penalty Risks. When logistics delays are inevitable, it is necessary to skillfully use platform rules for “risk hedging.” Set up “pre-order mode” in the background of platforms such as Amazon and Walmart to extend the shipping time to 30 days, avoiding excessive order cancellation rates due to delayed shipping; promptly open a Case to apply for “temporary storage capacity expansion,” provide delay certificates issued by logistics providers, and some sellers can obtain an additional 500-1000 storage spaces to alleviate inventory pressure; proactively inform customers of logistics timeliness adjustments through store announcements and emails, and attach small benefits such as 10% discount coupons. Data shows that such proactive communication can reduce negative review rates by 90%.

(2) Mid-Term Optimization: 3-Month Supply Chain Reconstruction to Achieve Proactive Prevention and Control

Short-term emergency responses can only treat the symptoms. To avoid the recurrence of the “Year-End Syndrome,” it is necessary to reconstruct the supply chain 3-6 months before the peak season and build a more resilient fulfillment system.

Advance Stockpiling: 60-Day Cycle to Lock in Costs and Capacity. The core is to break the inertial thinking of “waiting for the announcement of promotional nodes before stockpiling” and launch the stockpiling plan according to “60 days before the historical peak season.” Taking Black Friday (the fourth Friday in November) as an example, sea freight stockpiling needs to be completed by mid-August (15 days for express sea freight + 5 days for customs clearance + 5 days for warehousing = 25 days, with a 35-day buffer period reserved). In 2023, an outdoor product seller completed 1000 cubic meters of Matson sea freight stockpiling on August 15 and all goods were warehoused by September 10. When the US West warehouses were congested in October, its inventory adequacy rate reached 90%, making it the only seller in the same category without stockouts, and Black Friday sales increased by 200%.

The calculation of stockpiling volume needs to adopt the “safety stock + flexible stock” model: safety stock = average sales in the past 3 months × 45 days (maximum peak season delay period), flexible stock = safety stock × 30% (to cope with sudden order growth). At the same time, implement differentiated stockpiling according to product characteristics: prioritize overseas warehouse deployment for high-value bestsellers, and adopt direct shipping mode for low-value test products to avoid inventory backlogs.

Logistics Cooperation: “1+N” Model to Diversify Risks. A single logistics provider cooperation model is prone to the passive situation of “container skipping” during peak seasons. A “1 core + N backup” logistics cooperation system should be established. Select first-level agents such as Matson and COSCO Shipping as core logistics providers, sign quarterly/annual container space guarantee agreements, and pay a 10% advance payment to lock in container space. The container space guarantee rate can reach over 80%, avoiding the embarrassment of “having money but no container space”; N backup logistics providers need to cover different routes and transportation methods, such as COSCO Shipping for European routes, J&T Express for Southeast Asian routes, and SF International for air freight. During peak seasons, divert 30% of goods to backup channels to diversify congestion risks.

At the same time, proactively enhance bargaining power: when the monthly order volume exceeds 500 units, directly negotiate agreement prices with logistics providers.