Warehouse Overload Is Just the Symptom: A Deep Dive into the Underlying Logic of Year-End International Freight Rate Surges and Last-Mile Delays

Every fourth quarter, the cross-border e-commerce industry is inevitably dominated by three key words: “warehouse overload,” “price hikes,” and “delays.” In 2025, the shipping rate for 40HC containers on the US West route soared from \(2,000 in March to \)7,000, the utilization rate of container storage areas at the Port of Los Angeles exceeded 92%, and the regular 15-day last-mile delivery was extended to 45 days. Most people simply attribute this phenomenon to “warehouse overload,” but beneath the surface, warehouse overload is merely a visible consequence of overlapping supply-demand imbalance, resource misallocation, industry ecological flaws, and external variables. What truly determines freight rates and timeliness are the hidden underlying logics in the cross-border logistics chain—rigid constraints on capacity supply, structural misallocation of logistics resources, vulnerabilities in the global supply chain, and lagging improvements in industry efficiency. This article will penetrate the surface, analyze the underlying logic from four core dimensions, and provide actionable solutions.

I. Underlying Logic 1: The Essence of Supply-Demand Imbalance—The Irreconcilable Conflict Between Rigid Supply and Pulsating Demand

The year-end “price surge” and “delay wave” in cross-border logistics stem from the structural conflict between “high demand elasticity” and “low supply elasticity.” This conflict is not a short-term market fluctuation but a long-term accumulation of mismatches between the rapid development of cross-border e-commerce and the carrying capacity of the logistics system, which erupts concentratedly during the year-end promotion peak season.

(1) Pulsating Demand: Concentrated Outbreak Driven by Overlapping Year-End Promotions

The demand growth of cross-border e-commerce is not linear but presents a pulsating characteristic of “stable on weekdays and surging at year-end.” 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%, with Q4 order volume accounting for over 40% of the whole year. The overlap of three major promotional nodes—Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and Christmas—has led to a 3-5 fold surge in order volume in November-December compared to weekdays. Taking Amazon as an example, global order volume during the 2025 Black Friday period exceeded 850 million, a 32% increase from 2024, with cross-border orders accounting for 65%. This concentrated demand poses an “instantaneous impact” on the logistics system—ports, ships, warehouses, and couriers need to handle several times the daily business volume in a short period, far exceeding their designed carrying capacity.

More critically, the “unpredictability” of demand exacerbates supply-demand imbalance. To seize market share, some sellers blindly stock up before promotions, leading to a surge in inventory of single categories (e.g., toy inventory in the US market increased by 70% year-on-year during the 2025 Christmas season), further occupying logistics resources. Meanwhile, logistics enterprises struggle to accurately predict demand peaks and adjust capacity in advance, leaving them with only passive responses. This pattern of “uncontrolled expansion on the demand side and delayed response on the supply side” directly triggers a “container space rush” and “warehouse space rush,” followed by irrational increases in freight rates.

(2) Rigid Supply: Construction Cycles and Adjustment Lag of Logistics Resources

In sharp contrast to pulsating demand, logistics supply has an inherent “rigid characteristic”—the construction and adjustment of core logistics resources (ships, ports, warehouses, transport vehicles) require a long cycle of 3-5 years, making it impossible to quickly expand capacity in response to short-term demand.

Taking the shipping industry as an example, global new container ship capacity increased by only 3% in 2023, while cross-border e-commerce demand grew by over 25% in 2024-2025, meaning supply growth lags far behind demand growth. More seriously, in early 2025, due to pessimistic market expectations of US tariff policies, major global shipping companies (such as Maersk and COSCO Shipping) reduced US route capacity by 15%, leading to an early shortage of container space. When demand rebounded in the second half of the year, the time lag of returning ships and delays in new ship deliveries prevented timely capacity replenishment, widening the container space gap to 30% at one point and directly triggering a “stepwise surge” in freight rates.

The supply rigidity of ports and warehouses is equally evident. As core hubs of the US West route, the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach rely on long-term projects such as terminal expansion and automated equipment upgrades to increase container throughput capacity. In 2025, the automation rate of the Port of Los Angeles was only 30%, far lower than Singapore Port’s 70%, and low manual operation efficiency resulted in slow cargo turnover. The construction of overseas warehouses also takes time: building a 100,000-square-meter overseas warehouse in the US requires 18-24 months from planning and approval to commissioning, which cannot meet the temporary expansion needs during the year-end peak season. This rigid constraint of “supply adjustment lagging behind demand changes” is the core underlying logic of soaring freight rates and last-mile delays.

II. Underlying Logic 2: The Dilemma of Resource Misallocation—Structural Flaws and Efficiency Loss in the Logistics Chain

If supply-demand imbalance is a “total volume conflict,” then resource misallocation is a “structural conflict.” Structural flaws in route layout, main body structure, and inventory management within the cross-border logistics chain prevent the efficient use of logistics resources, further amplifying year-end freight rate and timeliness issues.

(1) Route Layout Misallocation: Coexistence of Congested Popular Routes and Insufficient Capacity in Emerging Markets

The global layout of cross-border logistics routes shows a “two-tier differentiation”: capacity on popular routes such as the US West and Europe accounts for 70%, while capacity supply in emerging markets such as Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America is insufficient. This imbalanced layout leads to two extremes: on the one hand, popular routes are “overcrowded,” with fierce competition for container space and high freight rates—in 2025, the 40HC container shipping rate on the US West route was 2.5 times higher than that on Southeast Asian routes; on the other hand, emerging markets also face high logistics costs due to insufficient capacity, with extended last-mile delivery timeliness (e.g., the average last-mile delivery time on Middle Eastern routes reached 35 days).

More seriously, “path dependence” in route layout exacerbates congestion. Most sellers prioritize mature routes such as the US West and Europe, leaving ports and warehouses on these routes in a state of high load for a long time—the average ship detention time at the Port of Los Angeles in October 2025 reached 12 days, while ports in emerging markets (such as Ho Chi Minh City Port in Vietnam) had idle capacity. This misallocation of “overcrowded popular routes and wasted capacity in emerging markets” further pushes up overall logistics costs and reduces industry efficiency.

(2) Main Body Structure Misallocation: Resource Dispersion and Weak Bargaining Power Driven by Small and Medium-Sized Freight Forwarders

The main body structure of the cross-border logistics market is characterized by “small scale, fragmentation, and disorder”: small and medium-sized freight forwarders account for over 60% of the market share. These enterprises lack stable container space and warehousing resources, resulting in weak bargaining power. During the year-end peak season, to compete for container space, small and medium-sized freight forwarders have to pay a high premium to shipping companies and first-tier agents, which is then passed on to sellers, forming a chain of “layered price increases”—on the US West route in 2025, quotes from small and medium-sized freight forwarders were 30%-50% higher than those from first-tier agents.

At the same time, efficiency loss caused by resource dispersion further exacerbates delays. Small and medium-sized freight forwarders have low cargo concentration and need to integrate goods from multiple sellers for LCL (Less than Container Load), extending cargo collection time. Moreover, lacking intelligent logistics systems, they rely on manual work for order processing and cargo tracking, leading to high error rates (e.g., customs clearance delays caused by non-standard customs declaration documents account for 40%). This pattern of “dispersed main body structure and weak resource integration capacity” results in low coordination efficiency in the logistics chain, further amplifying year-end freight rate and timeliness issues.

(3) Inventory Management Misallocation: The Dual Dilemma of Blind Stockpiling and Insufficient Inventory

Sellers’ inadequate inventory management capabilities exacerbate the misallocation of logistics resources. Some sellers lack scientific inventory planning and blindly stock up before year-end promotions—during the 2025 Christmas season, 30% of overseas warehouses in the US had a capacity utilization rate exceeding 95% due to overstocking, with goods piling up in warehouses and unable to be shipped out. Meanwhile, other sellers faced stockouts in the middle of the peak season due to insufficient stockpiling, missing sales opportunities. This dilemma of “either overstocking to block logistics or understocking to miss the market” reflects insufficient coordination between sellers and the logistics system.

More critically, the misallocation between inventory and demand leads to the waste of logistics resources. Data in 2025 shows that during the year-end peak season, 30% of containers on the US West route were loaded with unsold products, which occupied valuable container space and warehousing resources, further exacerbating congestion. Meanwhile, best-selling products required high-cost air freight replenishment due to insufficient stockpiling, pushing up overall logistics costs. This misallocation of “inventory decoupled from demand” is an important driver of year-end freight rate surges and last-mile delays.

III. Underlying Logic 3: Supply Chain Vulnerability—Risk Transmission and Amplification Effects in the Global System

Cross-border logistics is a core link in the global supply chain, and its freight rates and timeliness are not only affected by its own supply and demand but also highly dependent on external variables such as global politics, economy, and natural environment. The vulnerability of the global supply chain means that risks in any link may be transmitted to the logistics chain, amplifying into “price hikes” and “delays” during the year-end peak season.

(1) Geopolitical Risks: Route Adjustments and Rising Compliance Costs

In recent years, geopolitical conflicts have become an important variable affecting cross-border logistics. In 2025, the Red Sea crisis continued to escalate, forcing 12% of global maritime trade routes to detour around the Cape of Good Hope. This increased the voyage of US-Europe routes by 5,000 nautical miles, extended shipping time by 5-7 days, and raised fuel costs by 20%. To cope with risks, shipping companies have raised “war risk” premiums, with premiums on some routes increasing from 0.5% to 2% of the cargo value, directly pushing up freight rates.

At the same time, adjustments in trade policies have increased compliance costs and customs clearance delays. In 2025, US Customs strengthened inspections on Chinese cross-border goods, raising the inspection rate from the conventional 5% to 15%, and extending customs clearance time from 1-2 days to 5-7 days. After the European VAT reform, the declaration process for cross-border packages became more complex, and some sellers had their goods detained due to non-standard declarations, further extending last-mile timeliness. This risk of “geopolitics leading to route adjustments and trade policies increasing compliance costs” is amplified into widespread freight rate hikes and timeliness delays when logistics pressure is greatest at the end of the year.

(2) Natural and Emergency Events: Insufficient Risk Resistance Capacity of the Logistics System

“Black swan” events such as extreme weather and public health emergencies have exposed the vulnerability of the cross-border logistics system. 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 a 4-fold increase in cargo backlogs compared to weekdays. During the same period, logistics workers’ strikes broke out in many European countries, reducing the unloading efficiency of the Port of Rotterdam by 60% and further exacerbating last-mile delivery delays.

More notably, “single-point failures” in the logistics system may trigger full-chain paralysis. For example, before the 2025 Christmas season, a sorting system breakdown due to equipment failure at Amazon’s US ONT8 warehouse affected the shipment of nearly 100,000 items, resulting in last-mile delivery delays of more than 15 days for these goods. This amplification effect of “local risks transmitting to the entire chain” is particularly evident during the year-end peak season, further pushing up freight rates and delay rates.

IV. Underlying Logic 4: Lagging Industry Efficiency—Insufficient Digitalization and Collaboration in the Logistics Chain

The rate of efficiency improvement in the cross-border logistics industry is far lower than the development speed of cross-border e-commerce. Efficiency shortcomings in port operations, warehousing management, and information collaboration within the logistics chain lead to low resource utilization efficiency, becoming an “invisible driver” of rising freight rates and delayed timeliness.

(1) Port and Warehousing Operations: Efficiency Bottlenecks Caused by Low Automation Levels

Ports and warehouses are core nodes in the logistics chain, and their operational efficiency directly determines timeliness and costs. However, the automation level of most ports and warehouses worldwide is currently low: the automation rate of the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach is only 30%, and low manual operation efficiency results in slow cargo turnover—the time from cargo arrival at the port to container pickup has extended from the conventional 2-3 days to 10-15 days. Meanwhile, the automation rate of third-party overseas warehouses in the US is less than 20%, with most still adopting manual sorting models. The order processing cycle has extended from 48 hours to 72 hours, and even exceeded 5 days during peak season.

Low operational efficiency directly leads to rising “hidden costs”: port congestion increases ship detention fees and container storage fees (detention fees on the US West route in 2025 increased by 200% compared to weekdays); low warehouse sorting efficiency leads to rising labor costs (wages for temporary workers at the end of the year increased by 50% compared to weekdays). These costs are ultimately passed on to sellers, manifesting as soaring freight rates.

(2) Information Collaboration: Decision Delays and Resource Waste Caused by Poor Data Connectivity

The cross-border logistics chain involves multiple subjects, including sellers, freight forwarders, shipping companies, ports, warehouses, and couriers, but information collaboration between these subjects is severely insufficient. Most small and medium-sized sellers still rely on manual communication with freight forwarders, resulting in delayed order status tracking—information such as whether a shipment has been booked successfully, cleared through customs, or shipped out often needs to be queried by phone or email, leading to failure to respond to abnormal situations in a timely manner. For example, in 2025, a 3C seller failed to replenish inventory in a timely manner due to not being informed of customs clearance delays, resulting in a 7-day Listing stockout and a loss of 500,000 yuan in sales.

Poor information connectivity also leads to resource waste: shipping companies cannot accurately predict cargo flow, resulting in uneven container space allocation (tight space on popular routes and idle space on less popular routes); warehouses cannot predict cargo arrival times in advance, leading to unreasonable allocation of warehousing space and further exacerbating congestion. This phenomenon of “information silos” prevents the efficient allocation of logistics resources, becoming an important underlying cause of rising freight rates and delayed timeliness.

V. Solutions: A Systematic Approach Based on Underlying Logic

To address the year-end surge in international freight rates and last-mile delays, we cannot merely focus on “dealing with warehouse overload” on the surface. Instead, we need to build a systematic solution of “short-term emergency response, mid-term optimization, and long-term upgrading” targeting the above four underlying logics.

(1) Short-Term Emergency Response: Rapid Adaptation to Supply-Demand Imbalance

When the year-end peak season has arrived and supply-demand conflicts are prominent, the core goal is to “stop losses and protect orders” by flexibly adjusting strategies to minimize losses.

Channel Combination Strategy: 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 (timeliness: 3-6 days) to quickly restore Listing sellable status; for mid-to-low-value products, select overtime ship resources of sea freight express (Matson, ZIM) (cost is only 1/3 of international express) to supplement inventory while controlling costs. During Black Friday 2025, a Shenzhen-based electronics seller reduced the stockout rate from 30% to 8% and achieved a 45% year-on-year sales growth through this model.

Overseas Warehouse Emergency Transfer: Deploy 30% of peak season inventory to overseas warehouses in target countries (e.g., Los Angeles Warehouse in the US, Hamburg Warehouse in Germany) in advance. In case of warehouse overload, directly transfer goods from overseas warehouses to platform warehouses, with last-mile timeliness 5-10 days faster than shipping from China. Meanwhile, use overseas warehouses to handle returns—refurbish customer returns and re-list them for sale to reduce reverse logistics losses.

(2) Mid-Term Optimization: Structural Adjustments to Address Resource Misallocation

To alleviate resource misallocation, it is necessary to reconstruct the supply chain 3-6 months before the peak season to optimize resource allocation efficiency.

Advance Stockpiling and Scientific Planning: Launch the stockpiling plan “60 days before the historical peak season” and adopt the “safety stock + flexible stock” model (safety stock = average sales in the past 3 months × 45 days, flexible stock = safety stock × 30%) to avoid blind stockpiling. Meanwhile, implement differentiated layout based on product characteristics—prioritize overseas warehouse deployment for high-value bestsellers and adopt direct shipping for low-value test products to improve inventory turnover rate.

“1+N” Logistics Cooperation Model: Establish a “1 core + N backup” logistics cooperation system. Select first-tier agents (e.g., authorized agents of Matson and COSCO Shipping) as core logistics providers and sign container space guarantee agreements to lock in capacity; N backup logistics providers cover different routes and transportation methods (e.g., COSCO Shipping for European routes, J&T Express for Southeast Asian routes) to divert 30% of goods during peak seasons and spread risks.

(3) Long-Term Upgrading: Fundamental Transformation to Address Supply Chain Vulnerabilities and Lagging Efficiency

To fundamentally solve the problem, long-term investment over 1-2 years is required to enhance supply chain resilience and industry efficiency.

Digital Empowerment: Introduce logistics management systems (e.g., ShipBob, Yicang ERP) to real-time monitor key indicators such as route congestion rate and customs clearance delay rate, enabling early risk warning; use big data analysis to optimize logistics solutions, matching the optimal logistics channels and warehousing locations based on product characteristics and target market consumption habits. For example, if data shows that customers in Southern Europe have high requirements for timeliness, an additional pre-positioned warehouse can be set up in Spain to shorten last-mile distance.

Ecological Collaborative Co-construction: Establish long-term and stable strategic cooperative relationships with suppliers, logistics providers, and overseas warehouse service providers, share sales data and inventory data to achieve “production based on sales and transportation based on production”; jointly invest in technological research and development to improve the automation level of ports and warehouses, introduce IoT devices to realize real-time cargo tracking, and apply blockchain technology to simplify customs clearance processes. In 2025, a cross-border e-commerce enterprise reduced peak season logistics costs by 22% and improved timeliness by 30% through building a collaborative ecosystem.

Multi-Channel and Localization Layout: Build a multi-platform matrix of “Amazon + Walmart + independent website,” allocate 30% of inventory to non-Amazon channels to spread fulfillment pressure; promote localized operations, establish local warehouses in target countries, and cooperate with local logistics providers (e.g., USPS in the US, DPD in Europe) to improve last-mile delivery efficiency and reduce reliance on international logistics.

VI. Conclusion: Penetrate the Surface and Grasp the Core Logic of Logistics Competition

The underlying logic of year-end international freight rate surges and last-mile delays is essentially a concentrated manifestation of mismatches between the rapid development of cross-border e-commerce and the carrying capacity, resource allocation efficiency, risk resistance capacity, and digitalization level of the logistics system. Warehouse overload is only a visible result of this series of contradictions—focusing merely on “dealing with warehouse overload” on the surface cannot fundamentally solve the problem.

For cross-border sellers, the key to breaking through lies in: penetrating the surface of “warehouse overload,” recognizing the four underlying logics of supply-demand imbalance, resource misallocation, supply chain vulnerability, and lagging efficiency, and building a systematic solution of “short-term emergency response, mid-term optimization, and long-term upgrading.” In the short term, quickly stop losses through channel combination and overseas warehouse transfer; in the mid-term, optimize resource allocation through advance stockpiling and diversified logistics cooperation; in the long term, enhance supply chain resilience and efficiency through digital empowerment, ecological collaboration, and localization layout.

In the 2025 cross-border logistics market, competition has shifted from “price wars” to “supply chain resilience wars.” Sellers who can see through the underlying logic and layout in advance will not only successfully navigate the year-end logistics crisis but also transform logistics into a core competitive advantage. When logistics timeliness is stable, costs are controllable, and services are high-quality, the so-called “price hikes” and “delays” will become opportunities for industry reshuffling, helping enterprises seize broader development space in the global market. After all, the ultimate competition in cross-border e-commerce has always been a competition of supply chain efficiency and resilience.