Resolves to yes if Apple receives a complete exemption from the imported goods tariff on China or is required to pay only 10% or less by April 30. If both the U.S. tariff on Chinese imports decreases to 20% AND no exemption to Apple is made by April 30, this market resolves to N/A.
Update 2025-04-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Exemption Criteria Clarification:
Apple does not need to be explicitly mentioned by name as long as it is, in practice, either completely exempt or subject to 10% or less tariff.
If there is any ambiguity regarding whether these conditions have been met, the market will resolve once a definitive answer is reached.
Update 2025-04-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Updated Resolution Criteria:
The calculation now uses the cost Apple pays to import rather than sales revenue.
New formula: (sum [cost of unexempt imports from China_i * tariff_i]) > (10% * cost of all products imported from China).
This calculation will reference the data from the last fiscal year ended in 2024.
Update 2025-04-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): New Calculation Basis:
Resolution criteria will now be based on the cost Apple pays to import goods rather than on sales revenue.
Calculations will use cost data from the last fiscal year ended in 2024.
Update 2025-04-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Imputed Percentages and Methodology Disclosure
The percentages used for determining the weighted tariff calculation will be imputed based on established estimates of goods made in respective countries.
The creator will provide a detailed explanation of the methodology prior to finalizing the resolution for review.
If there is significant dispute over the methodology or the final percentage falls within a margin of error away from the 10% criteria, the market will resolve to N/A.
Update 2025-04-30 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): * The calculation for the 10% threshold considers different types of tariffs and how exemptions apply:
Exemptions on electronic goods are considered to apply only to reciprocal tariffs (EO 14257).
Exemptions are not considered to apply to the 20% fentanyl tariff (EO 14195).
The threshold requires the weighted average tariff to be 10% or less across all Apple imports from China, considering the application of exemptions as described above.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ4,115 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,004 | |
| 3 | Ṁ932 | |
| 4 | Ṁ606 | |
| 5 | Ṁ498 |
People are also trading
This market will resolve to NO in ~ 24 hrs.
According to CBP bulletins and official guidance, the exemptions on electronic goods only applied to the reciprocal tariffs from EO 14257 and not the 20% fentanyl tariff from EO 14195. The threshold for a YES resolution was 10% or less across all Apple imports from China.
If anyone finds evidence to the contrary and believes this market should resolve YES, please reply to this within 24 hrs.
@ShamalPerera Uh, yes, I would object. Resolving this market as NO goes against both the spirit and the original description of your question.
You originally stated the market would resolve YES if Apple was effectively exempt or paying a weighted tariff of 10% or less by April 30. Importantly, your description and updates clearly said that any ambiguity would trigger a calculation based on Apple's actual import costs. The clarification about the fentanyl-related 20% tariff (EO 14195) came on literally the last day of the market. It wasn't mentioned in the title or description. This last-minute update significantly changes how we could reasonably interpret the original exemption language, especially since the electronic goods exemption under EO 14257 was clearly emphasized.
The CBP guidance from April 11, 2025 clearly exempted Apple's main products (smartphones, computers, and other electronics) from the reciprocal tariffs under EO 14257. That guidance was explicit:
CBP Exemption Guidance (April 11, 2025): https://www.cbp.gov/exemptions-electronics
Executive Order 14257: https://www.federalregister.gov/eo14257
Given these explicit exemptions, it was reasonable to assume Apple would easily meet the 10% weighted average tariff threshold. Introducing the fentanyl tariff distinction just yesterday effectively changes the rules after most bets were placed.
Earlier, you also assured us you'd provide a transparent weighted calculation (April 15). At the very least, it seems fair for you to follow through on this commitment and share the detailed calculation using Apple's FY2024 import cost data. If that calculation ends up close to the 10% threshold, resolving the market N/A would make sense, exactly as you indicated.
Bottom line: resolving as NO without first sharing this calculation feels inconsistent with what you've previously outlined. A fair, transparent approach would be to share the detailed weighted tariff calculation based on Apple's FY2024 import data. If there's still ambiguity after that, resolve the market N/A.
Thanks for considering! I appreciate your openness to a fair resolution.
@polymathematic In my biased opinion, I think the fentanyl related tariffs were still clearly included.
Firstly, the fentanyl related tariffs distinction wasn't a clarification made just yesterday. I had already commented 18 days ago directly sharing the information that the fentanyl tariffs still applied to electronics, in anticipation of this kind of confusion, even though I could've just kept that to myself and gotten an advantage from that. The clarification made yesterday was just the AI summarizing the market creator's reply to my comment yesterday.
Also, there's no reason to assume that the fentanyl related tariffs wouldn't apply under the original wording of the market. The market clearly says "Apple does not need to be explicitly mentioned by name as long as it is, in practice, either completely exempt or subject to 10% or less tariff." It has simply not been completely exempt from tariffs.
Secondly, while a detailed tariff breakdown would be good, the formula that has been shared has always been about the premium Apple pays on China imports only. Unless Apple breaks the law, I don't see how they could be subject to less than a 20% tariff on China imports.
@spiderduckpig There was a lot of misleading reporting claiming that Apple was completely exempt from tariffs (and confusing messaging from the Administration), but if you examine the fine print, the 20% tariffs on China for all imports (and removing de minimis exceptions) were never removed. I don't see why a clarification would have been needed for these tariffs to count, considering the market applies to all tariffs.
@spiderduckpig It seems pretty clear cut to me, the Administration placed 20% tariffs on all Chinese goods a few months ago and have never removed them. Exemptions have never applied to those 20% tariffs, a fact that has been clarified by the government and mentioned in the comments here over 2 weeks ago.
@polymathematic Hi Tim, thanks for explaining your reasoning. I understand what you are saying. However, @spiderduckpig is correct. My description was never specific to the "reciprocal tariffs". It applied to all tariffs placed on Chinese imports. Thus, both fentanyl and reciprocal tariffs are included.
The calculation for the exact weighted tariff is unnecessary because we know it is >20%. Going conservatively, if we assume that ALL of Apple's imports from China were exempt from the reciprocal tariff this implies that they still face the 20% fentanyl tariff making the weighted average = 20%. However, if some of the goods such as iphone cases and airpods are NOT exempt from the reciprocal tariffs then these goods face 145% tariffs and thus 20% < weighted average of tariffs < 145%. (Obviously this number is closer to 20% since iPhones and Macs (both exempt) likely have a greater cost) but the point is it must be >20%.
Just to confirm, Apple products still face a 20% "fentanyl" tariff, double the threshold for this market, US tariffs on most Chinese goods are still far in excess of 20%, and if this is still in place tomorrow, this market will resolve NO.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/what-we-know-now-that-trump-has-paused-tariffs-on-electronics/
>Trump instead argued that these goods are “just moving to a different” bucket. He also said that China will still face a 20 percent levy on electronics imports as part of his administration’s prior move related to fentanyl trafficking.
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCBP/bulletins/3db9e55
Federal Register guidance confirms tariff exemptions apply only to tariffs imposed under EO 14257, which only refers to the "reciprocal" tariffs applied on April 2, and does not modify tariff sub-heading 9903.01.24. Therefore, the minimum tariff rate on Apple products remains 20%.
@spiderduckpig Yes, if this is the case by April 30, 5pm PDT then this would resolve to NO. However, I will take a closer look at the US Customs website since Apple employees seem to think and have told me that they are fully exempt, airpods included.
@Panfilo i understand you. However, the switch from revenue to cost as a resolution criteria did not actually cause a big swing. It would not have caused a delayed effect either since my announcement that revenue would be used came only a couple hours before my update that cost would be used
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20xn626y81o
"These electronic goods are still subject to the 20% tariff on China related to fentanyl, White House Deputy Chief of Staff on Policy Stephen Miller posted on X."
There's no way apple pays 145% more on something as trivial and replaceable as phone covers and accessories. If they did not stock up before liberation day (and they probably did) they would just do without until they can find another supplier.
My point is that Apple is effeively tariff free (everything they care about from China is exempt, everything else is at most baseline 10%) until the reciprocal tariff extension expires (or something else changes)
It is unlikely that Apple accessories like phone cases are exempted from the tariffs
@spiderduckpig If it comes down to it, I will look to see if:
(sum [revenue from unexempt imports from China_i * tariff_i]) > (10% * revenue from all products imported from China)
... according to the last fiscal year ended in 2024
@ShamalPerera To clarify, what you're saying is the criteria is if the weighted tariff on Apple imports from China is at least 10%?
@spiderduckpig And when you say revenue, do you mean the value of imported goods or the revenue Apple derives from selling those goods?
@ShamalPerera But the price that Apple pays to import goods is significantly lower than the price it sells its goods at, for example it might buy an iPhone from China for $500 and sell it for $1,100. So a 20% tariff on Apple goods might only be <10% of its total sales revenue. Is that the intended purpose of this formula?
@spiderduckpig Great point, I missed that. I retract my previous calculation for the weighted tariff rates. In order to stick with the spirit of my original criteria, it will be cost Apple pays to import.
New formula:
(sum [cost of unexempt imports from China_i * tariff_i]) > (10% * cost of all products imported from China)
@ShamalPerera Apple does not report such information, not for FY 2024 or ever.
cost of unexempt imports from China
cost of all products imported from China
revenue from unexempt imports from China
revenue from all products imported from China)
@deagol It will be imputed. There are good estimates of percentages of various goods made in respective countries. I will comment my methodology before resolving for anyone to critique. If there is significant dispute or the final percentage is within a margin of error of 10%, then it will resolve N/A.