Why transport realisations are won or lost before the first bid

Transport insolvencies rose by 14 per cent in FY26, even as insolvencies nationally fell by 3.9 per cent.

CreditorWatch attributed the deterioration across Transport, Postal & Warehousing to rising fuel and finance costs and intense competition, particularly in road transport, where operators often have limited scope to pass higher costs on to customers. Yet the used-equipment market is not following exactly the same trajectory.

Pickles’ gross truck sales increased from $251 million in FY24 to $265 million in FY25, before reaching $301 million in FY26 – a rise of 20 per cent over two years. That figure should not be read as evidence that the value of every truck is increasing. Gross sales are influenced by the volume and mix of equipment coming to market.  What the data does show is that buyers remain active when the equipment, price, and sale conditions are right.

This matters in an insolvency because financial distress in the operating business does not automatically translate into distressed asset values. A transport company may be struggling to service debt, absorb higher costs, or generate enough cash from its contracts. Those problems do not necessarily determine what one of its prime movers or trailers is worth to another operator.

In my experience, the difficulty is rarely obtaining a valuation. It is working out how much of that value can actually be realised, how quickly, and on what terms.

Value, liquidity, and recoverability are different questions

Two prime movers can carry similar assessed values but behave very differently at sale. One may be a common specification with a broad national buyer base, complete maintenance records, and no practical barriers to inspection. Another may be configured for a specialised task, located a long distance from likely buyers, or difficult to assess because records are incomplete or it cannot be started.

The assets may look similar on a valuation schedule. Their liquidity is quite different.

This distinction becomes more pronounced across a fleet. Age, condition, kilometres travelled, configuration, maintenance history, and suitability for a particular application all influence demand. So does location.

A fleet may sit under one security interest and appear as one line on a balance sheet, but it does not follow that every asset should be grouped, prepared, marketed, or sold in the same way.

The risk for practitioners and lenders is treating valuation, liquidity, and recoverability as interchangeable. They are connected, but each answers a different question. 

Certainty changes who carries the risk

The financial structure of a realisation determines who carries market risk.

A guaranteed return can give an appointing party a known position and reduce its exposure to a weaker-than-expected sale. That can be valuable where timing is tight, the market is volatile, or confidence around provisioning is important.

The alternative may leave stakeholders exposed to more of the final sale result, including the possibility of greater upside. It also leaves them carrying more of the downside if competition is weaker than expected, the campaign takes longer, or holding costs increase.

Neither approach is right in every matter.

The decision needs to account for the quality of the assets, buyer demand, available time, holding costs, and the stakeholder’s appetite for risk. It should be made as part of the realisation strategy, not treated simply as a commercial term to be settled once the assets are ready for sale.

Preparation should be selective

The same judgement applies to work completed on the assets.

It will rarely be economical to repair every fault in a distressed fleet. Equally, moving equipment directly to market without considering its inspection readiness can unnecessarily reduce participation. The issue is not whether money can be spent improving an asset. It is whether that expenditure is likely to change the way buyers assess it.

In one transport insolvency I worked on in early 2026, approximately 80 trucks and trailers were spread across several sites. A guaranteed return was agreed across the asset package, giving the appointing party a known financial position. The equipment was then moved to centralised locations so buyers had consistent inspection conditions and clear collection arrangements.

Each prime mover was assessed by a qualified mechanic on arrival. The inspections identified several dashboard warning lights and battery-related issues. Batteries were replaced where required so the trucks could be started, moved, and properly inspected. This was not a fleet refurbishment exercise.

A buyer who cannot start a truck is not merely allowing for the price of a replacement battery. They may assume there is a more serious fault, reduce their bid to cover the unknown risk, or decide not to participate. In that situation, a relatively modest cost can improve the buyer’s ability to inspect and price the asset. More extensive mechanical work, without evidence that the expenditure will be recovered, may not make the same commercial sense.

The maintenance history for each asset was also made accessible to buyers. The records allowed prospective purchasers to make a better-informed assessment. That is often the practical value of preparation in an insolvency sale: not making the asset appear better than it is, but removing uncertainty that serves no one.

A large audience is not necessarily a deep market

The fleet was marketed broadly, but buyers who had recently participated in comparable transport sales were also approached directly. This matters because exposure and demand are not the same thing. The relevant question is not how many people see the campaign, but whether the assets reach buyers who understand the equipment, have a use for it, and can complete the transaction.

That buyer group may differ from one asset to the next.  A standard prime mover may attract interest from operators around the country. A specialised trailer may have a much smaller market, but strong competition can still be created if the relevant purchasers are identified.

In the 80-asset matter, the sale finished slightly above expectations.

No single decision explains the result. It was shaped before the auction opened – through the financial structure, inspection process, information provided, asset location, and depth of the buyer market.

Early advice leaves room to manoeuvre

The recurring problem I see is asset advice being sought only after the decision to sell has been made and the timetable has become urgent.

At that stage, there may be little time to test the market, examine different risk structures, locate maintenance records, deal with issues affecting inspection, or consider whether the fleet should be split across different buyer groups or sale periods.

Earlier involvement does not mean a sale is inevitable. The information may support a restructuring, refinancing, orderly wind-down or formal realisation. What it provides is a clearer view of the options before time and funding constraints begin to remove them.

For practitioners and lenders, the question is not simply whether a transport fleet has value. It is how much of that value is recoverable, over what period, and who will carry the risk involved in getting there.

By the time bidding opens, most of those decisions have already been made.

By Helen Sklavos, Executive Manager – Finance & Advisory, Pickles