How the Soybean Trade War Cost Farmers $20 Billion—And Why They Couldn't Hedge

On July 6, 2018, at 12:01 AM EDT, China imposed a 25% retaliatory tariff on U.S. soybeans—one of 545 American products targeted in response to President Trump's Section 301 tariffs. For Midwest farmers who'd hedged their harvest with CBOT soybean futures, the tariff announcement should have been manageable. They'd locked in $10.20 per bushel prices months earlier, protecting against market volatility.

Except their hedges didn't work.

By October 2018, U.S. soybean exports to China had collapsed 99%. Farmers who'd carefully hedged price risk with futures contracts watched cash prices crater to $8.20 per bushel—20% below their hedge targets—as the basis (the difference between local cash prices and futures settlement) exploded from a predictable -$0.30 to a devastating -$1.70 per bushel. Their futures positions protected them from global soybean price movements but offered zero protection against the policy shock that eliminated 60% of their export market overnight.

The numbers tell a brutal story: U.S. soybean exports to China plummeted 74%, from 31.7 million tonnes in 2017 to just 8.2 million tonnes in 2018. Brazil's exports to China surged past 70 million tonnes, capturing market share that American farmers would never fully recover. The USDA ultimately distributed $23 billion in emergency Market Facilitation Program payments to offset trade war losses—an implicit admission that conventional hedging tools had failed catastrophically.

This wasn't just a price shock. It was a structural market dislocation that exposed the critical gap between what commodity futures hedge (continuous price risk) and what they can't hedge (discontinuous policy risk, demand destruction, and trade war-induced basis explosions). Understanding why farmers' hedges failed—and what tools could have protected them—reveals lessons essential for anyone managing agricultural trade exposure in an era of escalating tariff threats and geopolitical instability.

The Tariff Shock: July 6, 2018

Background: Section 301 and Retaliation

The soybean tariff didn't emerge in isolation. It was China's direct response to the Trump administration's Section 301 investigation, which found that China engaged in forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and discriminatory licensing practices. On July 6, 2018, the U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports—industrial machinery, aerospace parts, electronics components.

China's retaliation was surgical and strategic. Among the 545 American products targeted, soybeans stood out for maximum political and economic impact:

Political targeting: Soybeans hit America's agricultural heartland—Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska—states critical to Republican electoral coalitions. China's message was clear: tariffs would hurt Trump's base.

Economic leverage: In 2017, China imported 31.7 million tonnes of U.S. soybeans, representing 57-60% of total U.S. soybean exports and roughly one-third of American farmers' entire soybean production. No other commodity offered China equivalent leverage over U.S. agriculture.

Alternative supply: Brazil had expanded soybean production throughout the 2000s-2010s, creating excess capacity that could substitute U.S. supply within a single harvest cycle. China could credibly shift demand without creating domestic shortages—a precondition for effective retaliation.

When the 25% tariff took effect at 12:01 AM EDT on July 6, 2018, it instantly made U.S. soybeans 25% more expensive for Chinese buyers relative to Brazilian alternatives. For a Panamax vessel carrying 60,000 tonnes at $10/bushel (approximately $367/tonne), the tariff added $5.5 million in costs—enough to make U.S. cargoes economically uncompetitive even accounting for quality premiums and transportation differentials.

Immediate Market Impact

Export collapse (July-December 2018):

For context, the entire 2018 U.S. soybean harvest totaled approximately 120 million tonnes. Losing 60% of Chinese demand (23.5 million tonnes) meant nearly 20% of total U.S. production suddenly lacked export homes—a supply glut of unprecedented scale in modern agricultural markets.

Price impacts:

The Basis Explosion: Why Hedges Failed

For farmers who'd sold CBOT soybean futures to hedge their harvest, the tariff created a nightmarish scenario: global soybean prices (tracked by CBOT futures) declined modestly, but U.S. cash prices collapsed far more severely.

What happened to the basis:

Normal conditions (2015-2017 averages):

Trade war conditions (September-November 2018):

Why basis exploded:

  1. CBOT futures tracked global prices: Futures contracts settled based on delivery into approved warehouses in Chicago, Toledo, and St. Louis. These delivery points remained connected to global export markets (Europe, Southeast Asia, Mexico), so CBOT prices reflected global soybean supply-demand, which weakened modestly due to large U.S. harvest but didn't collapse.

  2. U.S. cash markets isolated: China's tariff effectively severed U.S. soybeans from 60% of their export demand while leaving Brazilian soybeans connected. This created a two-tier global market: Brazilian soybeans trading at near-normal global prices, U.S. soybeans trading at massive discounts to attract alternative buyers (European crushers, Southeast Asian importers) who'd previously bought Brazilian.

  3. Storage crisis amplified basis weakness: With export demand gone, U.S. farmers and elevators faced a storage crisis. On-farm storage filled rapidly; commercial storage hit capacity limits. Desperate to avoid paying storage costs or piling soybeans on the ground (which occurred in some regions), farmers sold into depressed cash markets, further weakening basis.

Example: Iowa farmer's hedge failure

Pre-tariff hedge (April 2018):

Actual outcome (October 2018):

Shortfall: $495,000 (expected) - $425,000 (actual) = $70,000 loss (14.1% below target)

This farmer did everything right: hedged at planting, sized position correctly, held hedge through harvest. Yet the trade war destroyed $70,000 in expected revenue because futures hedged global price risk but couldn't hedge U.S.-specific demand destruction.

Multiply this across 30+ million acres of U.S. soybeans facing similar dynamics, and the aggregate losses reached catastrophic levels—losses conventional hedging tools simply couldn't prevent.

The Trade Collapse: U.S. Exports vs. Brazilian Gains

U.S. Export Devastation (2017 vs. 2018)

The shift was immediate and brutal:

2017 (pre-tariff baseline):

2018 (post-tariff):

China's total soybean imports actually declined from approximately 95 million tonnes (2017) to 88 million tonnes (2018)—a 7 million tonne drop reflecting both tariff-induced price increases and China's efforts to reduce soybean meal usage in livestock feed (substituting with alternative proteins and feed efficiency improvements).

But the critical point: China's import reduction (7 million tonnes) was far smaller than the U.S. export loss to China (23.5 million tonnes). The difference? Brazil, Argentina, and other suppliers filled the gap, completely displacing U.S. market share.

Where did U.S. soybeans go instead?

U.S. exporters scrambled to find alternative markets, partially offsetting Chinese losses:

Total alternative market absorption: Approximately 8-12 million tonnes—leaving 11-15 million tonnes of the 23.5 million tonne China shortfall unplaced. This excess supply sat in U.S. storage, depressing cash prices and creating the basis crisis discussed earlier.

Brazil's Unprecedented Surge

While U.S. farmers faced devastation, Brazilian soybean producers and Port of Santos saw historic boom times:

Brazilian soybean exports to China:

The 2018 record: Brazil's soybean exports to China in 2018 reached 2.52 billion bushels (approximately 68.6 million tonnes), the largest single-year shipment in history. This surge occurred despite Brazil's total soybean production growing only modestly (+5-8% year-over-year)—Brazil essentially reallocated soybeans from other export markets and domestic consumption to capture displaced U.S. volumes.

Port of Santos and Brazilian infrastructure impacts:

Santos, Brazil's largest port and primary soybean export gateway, handled record volumes in 2018:

Brazil's infrastructure constraints—limited rail capacity, truck-dependent logistics, port congestion—became acute bottlenecks. Yet despite these challenges, Brazilian exporters capitalized on the arbitrage opportunity created by China's tariffs: U.S. soybeans trading at $360-370/tonne FOB Gulf, Brazilian soybeans trading at $385-395/tonne FOB Santos, but Chinese buyers paying the premium to avoid 25% tariffs on U.S. origin.

Brazilian Real exchange rate effects:

The USD/BRL exchange rate weakened throughout 2018 (4.0 in early 2018 → 3.7-3.9 range in Q2-Q3), making Brazilian soybeans 5-8% cheaper in dollar terms for Chinese buyers just as demand surged. This currency tailwind amplified Brazil's competitive advantage beyond the tariff differential alone.

Long-term structural shift:

The trade war didn't just create a one-year distortion—it fundamentally restructured global soybean trade:

Brazilian market share of Chinese soy imports:

Brazil captured 5-10 percentage points of permanent market share gains—representing 5-10 million tonnes annually—that American farmers never reclaimed. Even after tariffs were reduced under the Phase One Agreement (January 2020) and removed entirely by 2023, Chinese buyers maintained diversified sourcing to reduce dependence on U.S. supply, cementing Brazil's structural advantage.

Argentina and Other Beneficiaries

Argentina also gained, though more modestly:

However, Argentina's gains were limited by:

  1. Export taxes: Argentina imposed 30% export taxes on soybeans (subsequently reduced but still substantial), reducing farmer incentives to expand production
  2. Crushing focus: Argentina's soybean industry emphasizes domestic crushing (soybean meal and oil exports) over whole bean exports, limiting direct substitution for U.S./Brazilian whole beans
  3. Smaller production base: Argentine soybean production (50-60 million tonnes) is half of Brazil's (120-140 million tonnes), limiting expansion capacity

Other marginal beneficiaries included Canada, Russia, and Ukraine (for non-GM soy markets), but their volumes remained small (fewer than 2 million tonnes combined) relative to the Brazil-U.S. shift.

Why CBOT Futures Failed to Hedge Demand Destruction

What Futures Hedge: Price Risk

Commodity futures contracts excel at hedging continuous price risk—the normal volatility in commodity prices driven by weather, harvest yields, currency fluctuations, and gradual demand shifts. For Midwest soybean farmers, this typically means:

Risks futures hedge well:

  1. Drought in Argentina → global supply tightens → prices rise → long futures offset higher cash prices
  2. Bumper U.S. harvest → supply surplus → prices fall → short futures lock in higher pre-harvest prices
  3. Brazilian Real strengthens → Brazilian exports less competitive → U.S. captures market share → prices rise → futures capture this
  4. General economic slowdown → soy meal demand softens → prices decline gradually → futures positions adjust

Key characteristic: These risks affect global prices relatively uniformly. Whether you're delivering soybeans in Iowa, Illinois, or Brazil, drought in South America raises prices everywhere. CBOT futures, which settle based on Chicago-area delivery, correlate 0.85-0.92 with cash prices across the Midwest because the underlying supply-demand fundamentals move together.

Basis risk in normal markets:

Even in normal conditions, basis risk exists—the difference between local cash prices and CBOT futures settlement can vary due to:

But these factors are predictable and bounded: basis historically ranged -$0.20 to -$0.50 per bushel with well-documented seasonal patterns. Farmers could model basis, adjust hedge ratios, and achieve 90-95% hedging effectiveness—meaning 90-95% of cash price movements were offset by futures gains/losses.

What Futures Can't Hedge: Policy Shocks and Demand Destruction

The July 2018 soybean tariff created three discontinuous risks that futures markets fundamentally cannot price or hedge:

1. Bilateral trade destruction (severing export channels)

China's 25% tariff didn't reduce global soybean demand evenly—it eliminated U.S. access to 60% of export demand while leaving Brazilian/Argentine access intact. This created a two-tier global market:

CBOT futures settled based on delivery into U.S. locations (Chicago, Toledo, St. Louis) connected to both tiers of demand—exporters could still ship to Europe/Asia from these points, so futures prices reflected blended global demand minus U.S.-China channel.

But U.S. cash markets (Iowa farm gates, country elevators) were isolated in Tier 2—soybeans physically located in Iowa couldn't access China without incurring prohibitive tariff costs, so cash prices reflected only Tier 2 demand (sharply reduced).

Result: CBOT futures declined 7-9% (global prices weakened modestly), while U.S. cash prices declined 15-20% (Tier 2 isolation), creating a 6-12% basis gap that hedges couldn't bridge.

2. Basis explosion beyond historical bounds

Futures hedging relies on basis predictability: if basis normally ranges -$0.20 to -$0.50, farmers can model expected revenue with reasonable accuracy. Even if futures prices fall $1.00, they know cash will fall roughly $1.00 minus normal basis—hedges work.

But the trade war pushed basis to -$0.76 to -$1.70 per bushel—300-400% wider than historical norms. This wasn't a gradual widening farmers could anticipate; it was a discontinuous shock with no precedent.

Why futures couldn't price this:

CBOT futures aggregate expectations of thousands of participants—farmers, elevators, processors, speculators, arbitrageurs. In normal markets, arbitrageurs enforce convergence: if futures trade too high relative to cash, arbitrageurs buy cash soybeans, sell futures, and deliver against contracts, capturing the spread and forcing prices to align.

But trade war basis widening wasn't arbitrageable:

Without arbitrage enforcement, basis widened far beyond historical ranges, and futures prices couldn't adjust to reflect this because delivery mechanisms assumed normal market connectivity.

3. Volume/demand risk vs. price risk

Crucially, futures hedge the price per bushel, not the number of bushels you can sell or the markets available to sell into.

Farmer perspective:

But the deeper problem: many farmers faced demand destruction beyond price:

Futures contracts don't pay out based on "I couldn't find a buyer" or "I had to store beans on the ground and they spoiled." They settle based on price at specific delivery locations. If those delivery locations face demand destruction that doesn't affect global benchmark prices, hedgers are exposed.

Case Study: The Basis Disaster in Convergence

Academic research published in Choices Magazine (2019) documented the convergence failure quantitatively:

Normal convergence (2015-2017 averages):

Trade war convergence (2018):

Critical insight: The November 2018 contract—expiring at the peak of export collapse—saw basis widen to levels unprecedented in modern soybean markets. Farmers who hedged by selling November futures in April-May 2018 (before tariffs) were unprotected against this basis blowout.

Why November was worst:

November futures correspond to harvest delivery—the period when U.S. farmers sell the largest volumes. October-November 2018 was when China's tariff impact fully materialized: export sales to China literally hit zero, storage facilities overflowed, and desperate farmers sold into collapsing cash markets. CBOT futures couldn't reflect this local U.S. distress because global prices (which futures track) remained supported by tight Brazilian/Argentine supplies.

Corn vs. soybean comparison:

Interestingly, corn convergence remained normal in 2018 despite trade war headlines. Why? China imports relatively little U.S. corn (fewer than 5% of U.S. corn exports), so trade war impacts were minimal. This provides a control group confirming that soybean convergence failures were trade-specific, not general market dysfunction.

The $23 Billion USDA Bailout: Market Facilitation Program

Program Scale and Structure

By late 2018, it became clear that market forces and futures hedges could not protect farmers from trade war losses. In August 2018, USDA announced the Market Facilitation Program (MFP), designed to provide direct payments offsetting losses from retaliatory tariffs.

Total MFP payments (2018-2019):

Payment structure (2018):

MFP calculated payments based on production × per-bushel rate, varying by crop:

Soybean farmer domination: In 2018, soybean farmers collected $5.1 billion—representing 85% of total MFP payments despite soybeans being only one of multiple commodities affected. This overwhelming concentration confirms soybeans bore the brunt of trade war impacts.

2019 program adjustments:

USDA revised MFP for 2019, shifting to a county-level payment rate based on aggregate trade impacts rather than crop-specific rates. This aimed to distribute payments more equitably, but soybean-producing counties still received the largest per-acre amounts.

643,965 farming operations received MFP payments in 2019, covering nearly every soybean, corn, cotton, and wheat operation in affected states.

What the Bailout Reveals About Hedging Failures

The sheer scale of MFP—$23 billion—represents an implicit government admission that conventional risk management tools failed:

If futures hedging worked as intended:

MFP's existence proves:

Political economy angle:

MFP wasn't just economic relief—it was political necessity. Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska (top soybean states) were critical to 2020 presidential and congressional elections. Allowing farmers to absorb $20+ billion in unhedged losses would have been politically catastrophic.

The bailout effectively socialized the cost of trade war policy, transferring losses from farmers (who couldn't hedge) to taxpayers. This raises a critical question: if farmers can't hedge trade war risk with market instruments, should trade war policies account for this unhedgeable exposure before implementation?

Comparison to Crop Insurance

Some observers argued, "Farmers have crop insurance—why wasn't that sufficient?"

Crop insurance covers:

  1. Yield losses (drought, floods, pests reduce bushels harvested)
  2. Revenue losses (if yield × price falls below guaranteed level)

Crop insurance doesn't cover:

  1. Basis risk (policy-induced divergence between futures and cash)
  2. Demand destruction (markets disappearing, not prices falling)
  3. Storage costs (paying 15-20¢/bushel/month because export channels closed)
  4. Quality degradation (ground storage spoilage not covered by standard policies)

Revenue Protection (RP) insurance example:

A farmer with RP insurance in 2018 faced:

Problem: RP insurance uses county-average yields and harvest-time futures prices—not individual farm cash prices. If:

Insurance calculates payout based on futures ($9.90), not cash ($8.20). The 14% gap created by basis explosion? Not covered.

Furthermore, if county-average yields were normal (no drought), no yield-based payment occurs, even if individual farmers faced storage/quality losses.

Result: Crop insurance provided partial protection (covering 3% futures price decline) but missed 70-80% of actual farmer losses caused by basis and demand destruction. MFP was necessary to fill this gap.

Why Prediction Markets Would Have Helped

The Hedging Gap: Volume and Demand Risk

Farmers' fundamental exposure in the 2018 trade war wasn't just "What price will soybeans trade at?" (futures hedge this). It was:

"Will China impose tariffs that destroy U.S. export demand?" "Will basis explode beyond historical ranges?" "Will export contracts be canceled en masse?"

These are binary event risks and policy risks—exactly what prediction markets price.

How a Prediction Market Hedge Would Have Worked

Imagine a prediction market in April 2018 (before tariffs) offering:

"Will the U.S.-China soybean trade volume in Q3-Q4 2018 fall below 5 million tonnes?"

Iowa farmer's hedging strategy:

Exposure:

Conventional hedge (insufficient):

Upgraded hedge (futures + prediction market):

  1. Sell 10 CBOT futures at $10.20 (hedge price risk)
  2. Buy prediction market YES shares (hedge trade war risk)

Sizing the prediction market position:

Outcome if tariffs imposed (actual scenario):

Result: Farmer achieves $510,000 revenue (vs. $495,000 target)—fully protected from trade war impact, with $15,000 cushion.

Outcome if no tariffs (normal harvest):

Result: Farmer pays 9.2% premium (cost of insurance) but avoids catastrophic $85,000 loss.

Why This Works: Hedging the Event, Not Just the Price

Key distinction:

The trade war created a discrete state change:

Futures prices adjusted gradually (7-9% decline over 6 months) because global supply-demand fundamentals changed modestly. But farmer exposure shifted discontinuously from State 1 to State 2 overnight when tariffs took effect.

Prediction markets price the state change directly: 35% probability of State 2 occurring. If you're exposed to State 2 losses, you buy insurance at 35¢ per $1 of coverage—simple, transparent, tied to the event itself.

What Prediction Markets Would Measure

Useful trade war prediction markets for agricultural hedging:

1. Binary tariff announcement:

2. Export volume thresholds:

3. Basis widening:

4. USDA bailout probability:

5. Brazilian market share:

Advantages over options:

Some might argue, "Why not just buy put options on soybean futures?"

Options hedge price volatility, but:

Prediction markets hedge the specific event causing losses, decoupled from price movements. This precision is critical when policy shocks create divergences between futures prices and actual farmer outcomes.

Lessons for Today's Agricultural Markets

Trade War Risk Remains Elevated (2025 and Beyond)

The 2018 soybean experience isn't historical curiosity—it's a template for ongoing trade war risk:

Current flashpoints:

2025 tariff proposals:

For farmers planting 2025 crops today: The same hedging vulnerabilities exist. CBOT futures protect against drought, yield volatility, and normal price swings. But if China (or EU, or India) imposes tariffs in response to U.S. policy, futures won't hedge basis explosions or demand destruction.

How Farmers Can Hedge Trade War Risk Today

Step 1: Conventional futures hedge (price risk)

Maintain 70-90% of expected production hedged via CBOT soybean, corn, wheat futures—this remains essential for normal volatility.

Step 2: Add prediction market insurance (policy risk)

Allocate 5-15% of hedging budget to prediction markets covering:

Sizing rule: If trade war would cause $100,000 loss (unhedged by futures), and prediction market prices event at 30% probability (30¢ cost), buy $100,000 / 0.70 = $143,000 notional position for $43,000 upfront cost. This fully insures the $100,000 exposure at 43% premium—expensive, but compare to losing $100,000 uninsured.

Step 3: Monitor geopolitical leading indicators

Track signals that precede trade war escalations:

Use these signals to dynamically adjust prediction market hedges: increase coverage when tensions rise, reduce when relations stabilize.

Step 4: Diversify export exposure (operational hedge)

If financially feasible:

Operational hedges complement financial hedges—reducing the underlying exposure makes hedging cheaper and more effective.

What Policy Should Learn From the Soybean Disaster

For trade policymakers:

The $23 billion MFP bailout represents taxpayer-funded compensation for unhedgeable trade war risk. Before implementing tariffs that trigger agricultural retaliation, policymakers should:

  1. Quantify unhedgeable exposure: Model basis explosions, demand destruction, and storage crises that futures can't cover
  2. Price the bailout cost: If retaliation is expected, budget for MFP-scale assistance upfront—don't treat it as unforeseen emergency spending
  3. Consider prediction market signals: If markets price 60-70% probability of severe retaliation, the policy's expected cost includes bailout × probability

Efficient markets would price trade war costs into policy decisions—but currently, these costs are externalized to taxpayers via bailouts because farmers lack hedging tools.

For agricultural lenders and crop insurers:

Current revenue insurance products (RP, ARPI) failed to cover 70-80% of 2018 soybean losses because they don't address basis risk or demand destruction. Improved products could:

  1. Basis insurance riders: Pay if basis widens beyond historical ranges (e.g., -$0.50 to -$1.00 triggers coverage)
  2. Export access insurance: Pay if specific export markets close (e.g., China tariff-induced closure triggers payout)
  3. Storage cost coverage: Reimburse farmers for extended storage when export channels close unexpectedly

These products would fill gaps between futures (price risk) and prediction markets (event risk), creating comprehensive coverage.

Conclusion: The Hedging Tool That Didn't Exist

The 2018-2019 soybean trade war inflicted $23 billion in losses requiring federal bailouts because American farmers faced a risk they couldn't hedge: policy-driven demand destruction that decoupled local cash prices from global benchmarks.

CBOT soybean futures—the gold standard for agricultural hedging—worked exactly as designed: they tracked global soybean prices, which declined modestly (7-9%) as overall supply-demand fundamentals weakened. But U.S. farmers weren't exposed to global prices—they were exposed to U.S.-specific isolation from 60% of export demand, which caused cash prices to fall 15-20% and basis to explode 300-400% beyond historical ranges.

No conventional financial instrument hedged this:

The $23 billion USDA Market Facilitation Program effectively served as a post-facto prediction market: taxpayers bought farmers' trade war risk at 100¢ on the dollar after the event occurred. Had actual prediction markets existed pricing this risk at 30-40¢ on the dollar before tariffs took effect, farmers could have purchased insurance for $10-12 billion (instead of $23 billion in bailouts) and avoided $15,000-85,000 per-farm unhedged losses.

The tool farmers needed—prediction markets on trade war events, export volume thresholds, and basis protection—didn't exist in 2018. In 2025, as trade war threats re-emerge and agricultural exports face renewed tariff risks, farmers still lack comprehensive hedging tools beyond price-focused futures.

This represents a $20+ billion market failure: risk that's real, quantifiable, and devastating when realized, yet unhedged because the financial infrastructure doesn't exist.

Building this infrastructure—prediction markets for agricultural trade policy, chokepoint disruptions, and bilateral export access—would enable farmers to hedge the full risk profile, not just the price component. And it would force policymakers to confront the true cost of trade wars before implementation, as market-based insurance pricing would reveal expected losses upfront.

The 2018 soybean trade war taught a harsh lesson: in global agricultural markets increasingly shaped by geopolitical shocks, price hedges aren't enough. Farmers need event hedges. Prediction markets provide them. The question is whether we'll build this infrastructure before the next $20 billion disaster—or wait for another taxpayer-funded bailout to reveal, once again, the tools that should have existed all along.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why couldn't farmers just hold soybeans in storage until tariffs were lifted?

Storage costs 15-20¢ per bushel per month for commercial facilities, plus 8-10¢/bushel for opportunity cost (tying up capital). Holding soybeans for 12 months would cost $2.00-3.60/bushel—nearly 30-40% of the crop's value. Many farmers also lacked sufficient storage: on-farm bins filled rapidly, forcing ground storage that risked moisture/mold damage (10-25% value loss). By October 2018, storage space was so scarce some farmers piled soybeans outdoors under tarps—hardly a viable long-term strategy. Finally, no one knew how long tariffs would last—6 months? 5 years? Indefinite? Paying storage costs indefinitely waiting for policy resolution could bankrupt operations.

2. Did any farmers successfully hedge the trade war?

Very few. Farmers who sold 2019 or 2020 crop forward contracts in 2017 (before tariffs) locked in favorable prices for future deliveries—but this was luck/timing, not a trade war hedge. Some farmers with strong balance sheets held soybeans through 2018-2019, selling into the Phase One Agreement recovery (early 2020) when prices partially rebounded—but they paid enormous storage costs and faced bankruptcy risk if recovery hadn't materialized. No farmer had access to instruments specifically hedging "China tariff" risk—the closest equivalent would have been political risk insurance (typically unavailable/unaffordable for agricultural trade).

3. How did Brazil's soybean farmers benefit so dramatically?

Brazil captured U.S. market share but faced challenges too: (1) Infrastructure bottlenecks—Port of Santos and other export gateways experienced 30-40% longer vessel wait times, increasing logistics costs, (2) Currency volatility—the Brazilian Real strengthened in late 2018, reducing export competitiveness (though it weakened overall for the year), (3) Production limits—Brazil couldn't instantly expand acreage; 2018 gains came mostly from diverting soybeans from other markets/domestic use. However, long-term structural advantages persisted: Brazil's Mato Grosso region (primary soybean producer) has lower production costs than U.S. Midwest ($8-9/bushel vs. $10-11/bushel), so even without tariff advantages, Brazil remained competitive. The trade war accelerated a shift that was likely inevitable over 10-20 years, compressing it into 2-3 years.

4. What happened to U.S. soybean prices after the Phase One Agreement?

The Phase One Agreement (January 2020) committed China to purchasing $200 billion in additional U.S. goods over 2020-2021, including $32 billion in agricultural products (soybeans, pork, corn, etc.). China reduced soybean tariffs from 25% to 0% temporarily, and U.S. exports recovered modestly: 16.6 million tonnes in 2020 (vs. 8.2 million in 2018). However, this was still 48% below the 2017 baseline (31.7 million tonnes). Prices recovered to $9.50-10.50/bushel in 2020-2021, but basis remained volatile. Critically, Brazil maintained 65-70% Chinese market share—U.S. farmers regained access but never reclaimed pre-trade war dominance. COVID-19 pandemic disruptions further complicated 2020-2021 trade patterns, making it hard to isolate trade war recovery effects.

5. Could farmers have used currency hedges (shorting Brazilian Real) to offset losses?

Theoretically, yes—if Brazilian Real strengthened (making U.S. soybeans more competitive), shorting BRL/USD would profit. But trade war dynamics were opposite: the Real weakened overall in 2018 (USD/BRL rose from 3.2 to 3.9), amplifying Brazil's competitiveness. Shorting the Real would have increased losses rather than hedging them. Furthermore, currency-commodity correlations are complex: soy prices affect Real exchange rates (Brazil's primary export), creating feedback loops that make directional currency bets unreliable hedges. Prediction markets pricing "Brazil market share more than 75%" would have been far more precise.

6. Why didn't large grain elevators or trading firms protect farmers with better contracts?

Elevators and trading firms (Cargill, ADM, Bunge) faced the same demand destruction—they couldn't force Chinese buyers to purchase U.S. soybeans with 25% tariffs. Most forward contracts included force majeure clauses allowing cancellation if exports became economically impossible. Some elevators offered "basis contracts" where farmers locked in basis (-$0.30) separately from futures prices—but these contracts typically capped basis protection at -$0.60 to -$0.80, leaving farmers exposed to the -$1.70 extreme. Large trading firms did profit by arbitraging price dislocations (buying cheap U.S. soybeans, selling expensive Brazilian soybeans to China), but they had no incentive to share these arbitrage profits with farmers via protective contracts.

7. How do soybean trade war risks compare to wheat/corn?

Corn: U.S. corn exports to China are minimal (fewer than 5% of total U.S. exports), so China tariffs had limited impact. U.S. corn basis remained normal (-$0.30 to -$0.50) throughout 2018-2019, confirming that soybean basis explosions were trade-specific. However, future corn trade war risk exists—if China targeted corn in new retaliation, similar dynamics could occur.

Wheat: U.S. wheat faces different challenges—quality competition (Canadian/Australian wheat often preferred for milling) rather than tariff-driven demand destruction. Russia's invasion of Ukraine (2022) created wheat price spikes (+50-70%) but benefited U.S. farmers as Black Sea exports halted, the opposite of soybean trade war losses. Wheat's lower China dependence (fewer than 10% of U.S. wheat exports) reduces bilateral trade war risk.

Cotton: Faced trade war impacts similar to soybeans—China imposed 25% tariffs, exports fell 50%+, and cotton received $0.06/lb MFP payments (second-largest after soybeans). Basis widened but less dramatically than soybeans due to smaller export volumes.

8. What was the environmental impact of the soybean trade war?

Paradoxically, U.S. farmers reduced soybean acreage in 2019-2020 (down 10-12% vs. 2018 peaks), shifting to corn and wheat to avoid oversupply. This reduced fertilizer/pesticide use on soybean acres, marginally benefiting water quality. However, Brazil expanded soybean acreage by 5-8 million acres (2018-2020), often via deforestation in Amazon and Cerrado regions, accelerating biodiversity loss and carbon emissions. From a global environmental perspective, the trade war shifted soy production from relatively sustainable U.S. farms to deforestation-linked Brazilian expansion—a net negative for climate and ecosystems.

9. Can prediction markets scale to cover all agricultural trade risks?

Liquidity challenges: Soybean trade war risk affects 300,000+ U.S. soybean farmers with $30-50 billion annual exposure. Prediction markets would need $5-15 billion in liquidity to provide meaningful hedging (30-50% coverage of total exposure). Current agricultural commodity futures markets (CBOT corn, soybeans, wheat) have $50-100 billion daily trading volume, so the liquidity exists in adjacent markets. The question is whether prediction market platforms can attract institutional participants (grain elevators, trading firms, crop insurers) to provide liquidity. Regulatory clarity (CFTC approval for event contracts) is critical—without it, institutional participants avoid markets, limiting liquidity.

Product design: Effective prediction markets need precise resolution criteria: "U.S.-China soybean export volume Q3-Q4 2025" resolves on USDA official export statistics, published 30-60 days post-quarter. This transparency enables farmers to trust settlements. Vague criteria ("Will trade war worsen?") are unhedgeable—specificity is essential.

10. Where can I trade agricultural trade war risk today?

Ballast Markets resources:

Prediction market platforms:

Note: Agricultural-specific prediction markets remain underdeveloped compared to commodity futures. Advocating for regulatory approval (CFTC) and institutional participation is essential to build the infrastructure farmers need.

Start Hedging Beyond Price Risk

Protect your agricultural exposure from trade war shocks.

Explore Agricultural Trade Markets on Ballast →

Trade tariff announcement probabilities, export volume thresholds, and bilateral trade intensity. Ballast Markets offers binary and scalar contracts on the policy risks that CBOT futures can't hedge—settled on transparent, on-chain data tied to USDA, China Customs, and port authority reports.

Disclaimer

This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or agricultural advice. Trading commodity futures and prediction markets involves substantial risk, including total loss of capital. Futures trading involves leverage, which magnifies both gains and losses. Prediction markets are emerging instruments with evolving regulatory treatment. Past performance does not indicate future results. Hedging strategies do not eliminate risk and may result in opportunity costs when hedged events don't occur. Consult with qualified agricultural advisors, commodity trading advisors, and risk management professionals before implementing hedging strategies. Data references include USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, China General Administration of Customs, USDA Market Facilitation Program reports, academic research from University of Illinois, Kansas City Fed, Choices Magazine, and trade policy analysis sources (accessed through March 2025).

Sources