The short answer
An Australian transport or logistics business is valued by reconciling two figures: an earnings-based value using a normalised EBITDA multiple, and an asset-based Net Asset Value built from the secondhand market value of the fleet. Industry commentary generally places transport and logistics EBITDA multiples in a broad 3x to 6x range, with asset-heavy fleet operators typically toward the lower end relative to asset-light freight brokers. Under Australia's accepted valuation standards — IVS 104 and APES 225 — the applicable multiple and the fleet's net asset position both need to be evidenced for the specific business at the valuation date, not assumed from a sector-wide range, before either figure or a reconciled position between them can be relied on.
Why transport valuations start with two conflicting numbers
Most trading businesses are valued primarily on earnings, with net asset value used as a sanity check. Transport and logistics operators are different, because the fleet itself is a large, separately identifiable, readily saleable asset class with an active secondhand market. That means a Net Asset Value calculation on a transport business is rarely a token cross-check — it is often a genuine competing methodology consistent with the market value concept in IVS 104. A fleet of prime movers, trailers, forklifts and yard equipment can be valued unit by unit against secondhand market evidence, and that figure can sit meaningfully above or below what the same fleet generates in earnings once wages, fuel, maintenance, insurance and finance costs are stripped out. Reconciling the two is the substantive work of a transport valuation, not a formality before landing on the earnings figure.
What EBITDA multiple applies to a transport business
Industry commentary on Australian transport and logistics EBITDA multiples generally places the sector in a broad 3x to 6x EBITDA range, applied to normalised EBITDA — maintainable earnings after add-backs for owner-operator remuneration above or below market rate, one-off asset disposals, and any related-party arrangements (equipment leased from a director-owned entity, related-party freight rates) adjusted to arm's length, consistent with the arm's-length evidence the ATO's market valuation guidance expects related-party transactions to be tested against. Meaningful spread within that 3x–6x range is driven by contract mix, customer concentration, specialisation (refrigerated, oversize, tanker, last-mile) and whether the fleet is owned or leased. Asset-heavy operators typically sit toward the lower end of comparable ranges relative to asset-light freight brokers and logistics coordinators, because a buyer acquiring an asset-heavy fleet is also acquiring the capital replacement burden that comes with it. Any multiple applied to a specific engagement needs to be tested against current comparable evidence at the valuation date — sector-wide ranges quoted in commentary are a starting reference, not a number to apply directly.
How is the fleet valued on the asset-based side
In a transport business valuation, the Net Asset Value approach values the fleet, trailers, ancillary equipment and any depot or yard improvements against secondhand market evidence — dealer and auction data for comparable make, model, age and condition — less realisation costs, then nets off equipment finance liabilities (chattel mortgages, hire purchase, novated finance) against each asset rather than against the balance as a whole. This matters because equipment finance in transport is typically asset-specific: each truck or trailer usually sits against its own facility, and the net equity position varies unit by unit. A fleet that looks well capitalised on a blended balance-sheet view can include individual units that are underwater on their finance, and a valuer needs the finance schedule broken down by registration or asset number to do this properly, not just the aggregate liability figure from the financial statements.
What explains the gap between the two numbers
In a transport valuation, where the fleet's Net Asset Value sits meaningfully above the earnings value, it usually means the fleet is under-earning relative to its replacement cost — ageing owner nearing retirement, contract rates that have not kept pace with cost increases, or under-utilisation. Where earnings value sits meaningfully above NAV, it usually means the business has built something beyond the trucks: durable freight contracts, an established customer base with high switching costs, or route density and network position that a buyer would pay for even with an older fleet. The most supportable valuation position is the one the evidence best defends given which of these stories the financials, contracts and fleet condition actually tell — not automatically the higher of the two figures, and not automatically the earnings figure just because that is the conventional default for trading businesses.
Does contract freight or spot market work change the valuation
In a transport or logistics valuation, revenue composition changes what earnings multiple is defensible far more than revenue size does. A book weighted toward multi-year contract freight with rate review mechanisms, committed volumes and diversified customers supports a position toward the upper end of a comparable range, because that revenue is more predictable and more transferable to a buyer. A book weighted toward spot market work — one-off loads booked through freight exchanges or broker networks at prevailing rates — is inherently more volatile and more dependent on the current owner's relationships and rate-shopping discipline, which supports a more conservative position. Customer concentration compounds this: a small number of contract customers generating most of revenue is a specific, documentable risk that should be tested and, where material, reflected in the multiple or flagged as a discrete risk factor in the report, distinct from the general market range.
Does fleet age and finance debt reduce the value
Fleet age and condition affect both sides of a transport business valuation's reconciliation between earnings value and Net Asset Value. On the NAV side, age, kilometres, maintenance history and compliance status (registration, roadworthy, any outstanding defect notices) drive the secondhand value applied to each unit. On the earnings side, an ageing fleet approaching replacement implies a capital expenditure requirement that maintainable earnings should account for — either as a normalisation adjustment or as a factor pulling the multiple down, because a buyer is effectively inheriting a near-term capital commitment. The finance schedule needs to be reconciled unit by unit: outstanding balance, remaining term, interest rate and balloon or residual payment for each chattel mortgage or hire purchase facility, cross-checked against the asset register so the valuer can confirm which assets carry finance, which are unencumbered, and what net equity actually sits in the fleet rather than working from a single aggregate liability figure.
Does the driver shortage and subcontractor model affect the value
Driver availability has become a named risk factor in transport valuations rather than background commentary. Industry sources report a substantial and growing national shortage of heavy vehicle drivers, with an ageing driver workforce and a meaningful share expected to exit the industry over coming years, placing sustained upward pressure on driver wages and making route coverage a genuine operating constraint rather than a hypothetical one. Where a business relies heavily on subcontracted owner-drivers rather than employed drivers, that model needs to be examined on its own terms: subcontractor arrangements can offer flexibility and lower fixed cost, but they also carry sham-contracting and workplace-relations exposure if the substance of the relationship resembles employment, and they concentrate key-person and continuity risk if a small number of subcontractors carry a disproportionate share of the runs. Both driver-cost pressure and subcontractor-model risk are evidence a valuer should document and weigh, not generic sector commentary to gesture at.
Does a fuel levy or rate-adjustment clause protect the valuation
Whether a transport business can pass through fuel cost increases is a direct earnings-quality question, and the regulatory position on this has moved and is still moving. The Fair Work Commission issued a Road Transport Contractual Chain Order that commenced 21 April 2026, requiring parties across road transport contractual chains — including primary contracting parties and the operators and owner-drivers below them — to adjust rates at least twice each calendar month to recover increased fuel costs, applying regardless of whether the existing contract already provided for a fuel levy or rise-and-fall mechanism. Critically, the order is conditional on a fuel-price trigger rather than a standing obligation: its requirements stopped applying once the national diesel price fell back below the order's threshold, and reinstatement was, at last check, under active review by the Commission. This on-again, off-again status is itself useful evidence — a business's fuel pass-through arrangements need to be assessed against whatever the order's status is at the valuation date, not assumed from an earlier snapshot. A valuer should establish, contract by contract, whether fuel cost recovery is built into pricing through a documented, functioning mechanism independent of the order, and treat a business with genuine contractual pass-through protection as carrying materially more durable margin than one relying solely on the order being in force. Confirm the order's current status and threshold conditions at the valuation date before relying on it in any report.
What a defensible transport valuation file needs
In addition to standard financial evidence, a transport or logistics engagement typically needs: an asset register with registration numbers, make, model, year and odometer reading for every fleet item; the finance schedule broken down by asset showing outstanding balance and terms; the customer and contract schedule showing revenue concentration and remaining contract terms; details of any fuel levy or rate-adjustment clauses in major customer contracts and evidence of whether they are actually being applied; and a breakdown of driver arrangements — employed versus subcontracted, headcount, and any recent turnover. Where this evidence is thin, particularly around contract terms and fuel pass-through, the report should say so and adopt a more conservative position rather than assume favourable terms that cannot be documented.
What a transport business valuation costs at Prismi
Most transport valuations warrant the Comprehensive tier (from $3,995 + GST, 15–25 business days) at minimum, because the dual-methodology reconciliation between NAV and earnings value is close to mandatory for this sector rather than optional. Where the fleet is large, finance arrangements are complex, or the matter is a related-party transfer or small business CGT concession claim likely to be reviewed, the Defensible Valuation File (from $8,995 + GST, 25–35 business days) is the appropriate level, given the number of individually verifiable inputs — fleet units, finance facilities, contracts — that need to be documented. Retrospective valuation dates add $495 per historical date and additional entities add $750 each, consistent with Prismi's published fee schedule. We do not select the earnings or asset figure to suit a preferred outcome; where the two methodologies point to materially different conclusions, the report explains why and identifies which position the evidence most strongly supports, prepared consistently with APES 225 and IVS 104. Prismi is not a registered tax agent and does not provide tax, legal or financial advice; small business CGT concession eligibility, related-party transfer structuring and finance arrangements are matters for the client's accountant or lawyer, working from the valuation evidence.