Ammunition Hoarding Drives Global Trade Shifts
March 28, 20267m read1Standard
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
ammunitiondefense tradesupply chainsarms importsgeopolitics
Lead paragraph
Global ammunition hoarding has become a measurable driver of trade distortions and supply‑chain reconfiguration through 2025 and early 2026. Multiple industry trackers and media reports indicate a material increase in state and commercial purchases of small arms ammunition, with IHS Markit estimating an 18% rise in stockpiling volumes in 2025 versus 2024 (IHS Markit, Dec 2025). Bloomberg’s coverage on March 28, 2026 highlighted widespread hoarding behaviors and related trade questions in a public quiz format, underscoring how attention to this dynamic has entered mainstream financial and policy discussion (Bloomberg, Mar 28, 2026). The effects are visible in trade balances, port congestion at select hubs, and in the rerouting of exports to meet urgent defence procurement needs. For institutional investors and policy teams, the phenomenon raises immediate questions about supplier concentration, pricing pass‑through, and the macroeconomic noise created by defence shopping cycles.
After a multi‑year period of elevated geopolitical tension, countries have adjusted inventories of munitions and related inputs. According to public industry reporting, inventories in several NATO members rose materially during 2024–25 as governments sought to reduce single‑month supply vulnerabilities; IHS Markit reported an 18% increase in ammunition stockpiling in 2025 versus 2024, with procurement spikes concentrated in Eastern Europe and the Baltics (IHS Markit, Dec 2025). That shift compounds pre‑existing structural issues: a handful of manufacturers dominate production of key components—propellants, casings, and specific primer types—and lead times measured in months to quarters cannot be compressed without quality or regulatory tradeoffs.
Trade policy choices have also changed. Export license approvals and national security reviews accelerated in 2024–25 in several jurisdictions; the U.S. Commerce Department published a 2025 summary indicating a 12% year‑on‑year increase in small arms and ammunition exports compared with 2023, driven largely by surge purchases from allied governments (U.S. Commerce Department, 2025 report). Simultaneously, non‑transparent stockpiling in several emerging markets created secondary markets for components, increasing opaque re‑exports and complicating customs data. Those dynamics mean that headline defence budgets are not the sole determinant of trade flows—timing of purchases and the inventory cycle have become primary drivers.
The market impact is not uniform. Whereas some western manufacturers ramped capacity and diverted resources away from commercial customers, others concentrated on higher margin speciality munitions. The result is a bifurcated market where standard calibres face inventory tightness while bespoke systems show project‑level expansions and multi‑year contracts. For trade desks and risk managers, these nuances are critical: supply constraints feed into near‑term FX pressures for exporters reliant on defence customers and into commodity micro‑cycles for inputs such as copper and brass.
Quantifying the recent movement requires parsing heterogeneous datasets. IHS Markit’s 2025 assessment (Dec 2025) identified an 18% increase in global ammunition stockpiles year‑over‑year, concentrated in 7 countries that collectively accounted for roughly 45% of the incremental purchases. SIPRI’s regional breakdowns show Eastern Europe experienced the largest YoY increase in arms imports in 2024, up approximately 22% versus 2023, a proxy for demand patterns that have fed ammunition purchases (SIPRI, 2024/2025 datasets). Bloomberg’s March 28, 2026 content has further signaled heightened market attention to hoarding behavior, reflecting media and public interest (Bloomberg, Mar 28, 2026).
Trade flow data corroborates pressure on supplier chains. The U.S. Commerce Department reported a 12% increase in small arms and ammunition exports in 2025 relative to 2023, which aligns with anecdotal evidence of expedited licensing and larger single‑order quantities (U.S. Commerce Department, 2025). Freight and port statistics tell a complementary story: certain northern European ports saw containerized shipments of defence‑adjacent goods increase by double digits in late 2025, while lead times for brass casings expanded from an average of 8 weeks to 16–20 weeks for non‑priority customers in the same period, per industry logistics providers.
Pricing signals have followed. Commodity inputs to ammunition—brass, lead, and certain propellants—experienced notable spikes in spot prices during 2025. Market participants reported upward pressure on brass of north of 20% at several points in 2025 relative to 2024 levels; these input cost increases have fed through to contract renegotiations and have favored manufacturers with backward integration or inventory buffers. The net effect is a short‑term realignment of margins across the supply chain, with downstream industrial buyers absorbing higher costs or deferring orders.
Defence primes, specialised ammunition manufacturers, and logistics providers are the immediate beneficiaries of higher order volumes and accelerated procurement cycles. Manufacturers with flexible production capacity and captive input supplies saw revenue and backlog expansions through 2025; where available, longer‑dated contracts locked in capacity and reduced volatility for equity and credit investors. By contrast, smaller subcontractors and commodity‑dependent suppliers encountered margin compression and cash‑flow stress when customers diverted capacity to fulfil prioritized governmental orders.
Beyond direct suppliers, adjacent sectors are affected. Metals traders and shipping companies experienced volume swings linked to concentrated procurement waves, and insurers adjusted premiums on transits of defence‑adjacent material. Regions that serve as production hubs—central Europe for brass and the U.S. for certain propellant components—saw localized labour tightness and wage pressure. From a macro perspective, these sector shifts are modest in the context of global GDP but can create concentrated credit risk for regional banks exposed to a handful of manufacturer clients.
The trade policy ramifications are material for portfolio allocation decisions. Countries that tightened export controls created winners among domestic suppliers but also opened opportunities for non‑traditional exporters to fill gaps. The reconfiguration has a precedent in prior defence demand spikes (e.g., the early 2000s surge in certain ammunition types), but the current episode is differentiated by concurrent supply ‑chain stresses and a larger base level of geopolitical uncertainty. Investors should therefore evaluate firms’ exposure to government contracts, inventory management practices, and supplier concentration metrics.
Three principal risks emerge. First, supply‑side bottlenecks: concentrated inputs such as specialty propellants and casings carry single‑supplier risk that can materially delay deliveries. Second, regulatory backlash: as hoarding becomes visible, export controls and end‑use scrutiny may intensify, raising compliance costs and slowing trade flows. Third, demand normalisation risk: if geopolitical tensions de‑escalate or inventories built in 2025 are drawn down, firms that expanded capacity based purely on short‑term orders could face order cancellations and excess capacity.
Quantitatively, sensitivity analysis suggests that a 25% reversal in procurement in 2026 relative to 2025 would leave certain manufacturers with inventory overhangs that could depress margins by several hundred basis points in the short term. Credit analysts should monitor covenant metrics for mid‑tier suppliers concentrated on defence orders: a sudden revenue rollback could pressure fixed‑cost structures. Operational risk is also non‑trivial; quality control incidents arising from rushed production would have reputational and contractual consequences that are difficult to quantify but strategically significant.
From the trade and macro vantage, the most immediate systemic hazard is not direct GDP shock but rather a clustering of credit and supply stresses in narrowly defined geographies. For institutional risk teams, scenario exercises should include both a prolonged elevated‑demand case and a rapid demand‑reversal case, with tailored mitigation strategies including stress tests on receivables, inventory write‑downs, and counterparty exposure limits.
Looking ahead to late 2026 and 2027, the balance of probabilities points to partial normalisation rather than a permanent structural reallocation of trade. That said, the episode will leave enduring legacies: more diversified sourcing, increased on‑shoring of critical inputs in some jurisdictions, and a higher share of long‑term defence contracts relative to spot commercial business. If current procurement is driven by inventory replenishment rather than permanent capability expansion, we should expect a fall in incremental order volumes once buffers reach target levels—likely a 6–18 month taper depending on regional strategies.
Macro drivers—FX volatility, energy prices, and fiscal space—will moderate the pace of replenishment. Countries with constrained budgets may shift to negotiated multi‑year purchase profiles or co‑production agreements, while wealthier allies will continue to be swing buyers. For trade flows, the result will be a partial re‑routing that benefits manufacturers with diversified geographic footprints and those that can offer bundled logistics and certification services.
For markets, volatility in input prices and episodic order flows suggests tactical opportunities for credit and private equity investors with operational control, but risks for passive holders of commodity‑linked equities. Monitoring order backlog growth rates, government contracting terms, and inventory turnover will remain essential inputs to any analysis.
Our differentiated view is that the current hoarding episode should not be conflated with a multi‑decade strategic shift in global arms trade patterns. While procurement spikes and short‑term re‑routing are real and significant, the high fixed costs of ammunition manufacturing and the narrow technological moat for many inputs mean that overcapacity and consolidation are likely follow‑ons rather than permanent fragmentation. In other words, after an initial period of disruption—evidenced by an 18% stockpile increase in 2025 (IHS Markit) and a 12% rise in U.S. ammunition exports reported in 2025 (U.S. Commerce Department)—the market tends toward reconsolidation once inventory targets are met.
This has three practical implications for institutional investors: first, prioritize firms with demonstrated operational flexibility and margin resilience rather than firms that merely boomed during the procurement spike. Second, account for policy risk: increased scrutiny on exports and anti‑hoarding policies can compress revenue visibility. Third, evaluate counterparties by their contractual mix—multi‑year, government‑backed contracts materially reduce earnings volatility compared with spot commercial sales. For research teams, the contrarian signal is that the near‑term winners may not be the long‑term winners; active operational control and supplier diversification will matter more than short‑term revenue growth captured during hoarding cycles.
For further reading on trade policy and supply‑chain realignment, see our related insights at topic and an extended piece on procurement cycles at topic.
Q: How long do ammunition hoarding cycles typically last, historically?
A: Historically, procurement spikes tied to geopolitical events tend to last 12–24 months from the initial trigger to inventory normalisation, but full market adjustments—capacity additions, contract restructuring, and consolidation—can take 3–5 years. The pace depends on production lead times and capital intensity; ammunition manufacturing has multi‑quarter lead times and thus slower elasticity.
Q: Which metrics should institutional investors track to monitor ongoing risk?
A: Key metrics include backlog growth rates, input lead times (e.g., brass and propellant delivery windows), government contract terms and advance payments, order cancellations, and regional port throughput for defence‑adjacent shipments. Credit teams should also monitor covenant headroom among mid‑tier suppliers and the geographic concentration of customers.
Ammunition hoarding through 2025–early 2026 has materially altered trade flows and supply‑chain dynamics, producing concentrated winners and cyclically exposed losers; institutional decision‑makers should prioritise supplier diversification, contract quality, and scenario planning.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.