Executive summary
Fraud and limited visibility are undermining confidence and profitability in vehicle transportation. A new Auto Hauler Exchange report published Jan. 23 finds overall shipper satisfaction at 6.8/10, with shippers citing reliability, cost, and speed as top challenges. The data ties higher fraud and missed deliveries to intermediary-heavy models and highlights a strong demand for clearer pricing, real-time visibility, and direct accountability.
Key findings
- 29% of shippers experienced transportation fraud in the past three years. Among those victims: 53% reported ghost carriers, 47% double brokering, and 41% stolen vehicles.
- Shippers using traditional brokers or load boards were 72% more likely to experience fraud than those working directly with carriers or direct-to-carrier marketplaces.
- Delivery performance gap: shippers using brokers were 4.5× more likely to report missed delivery timeframes versus those using direct-to-carrier marketplaces.
- Speed expectations: 98% expect arrivals within eight days; nearly half expect delivery in fewer than four days.
- Visibility shortfalls: 69% want more ETA insight; 91% say real-time updates are important or very important; nearly half lack visibility into the true cost of delays; 15% cannot identify total annual transport spend.
- Top challenges: finding dependable carriers (46%), cost (42%), speed (34%).
Why it matters
Limited transparency slows reconditioning and retail prep, delays sales, and raises carrying costs, creating a direct and measurable impact on profitability. As dealers and remarketers focus on faster turn times, inefficiencies in transport amplify financial risk.
Fraud schemes defined
- Ghost carriers: Fraudsters impersonate legitimate motor carriers using stolen or fabricated credentials to secure loads or payments, then disappear.
- Double brokering: A load is re-brokered without the shipper’s consent, adding a hidden intermediary, obscuring liability, and increasing theft and claims complexity.
Operational impacts
Intermediary-heavy sourcing models add opacity that can be exploited, reduce recourse when issues arise, and correlate with more missed ETAs. Visibility gaps—especially around ETAs, real-time status, and the cost of delays—hamper planning for reconditioning, marketing, auction lanes, and OEM scheduling.
Recommendations from the report
- Shift toward direct-to-carrier relationships and marketplaces to clarify responsibility and reduce fraud exposure.
- Adopt verification workflows to authenticate credentials and counterparties before tendering loads.
- Implement end-to-end, real-time tracking with more precise ETAs to improve scheduling and accountability.
- Treat time as a measurable cost; quantify delay impacts to justify investment in visibility tools.
- Scrutinize where intermediaries add value versus opacity; standardize communication and performance metrics.
Methodology and scope
The study surveyed 59 vehicle shippers (dealerships, auctions, automakers) in late 2025. While the sample is small, it provides rare quantitative insight into a historically opaque segment of the automotive supply chain.
Implications for stakeholders
Dealers risk slower inventory turns and margin compression; auctions face missed lane commitments and lost momentum; OEMs encounter compounding schedule disruptions. Closing transparency gaps—through tighter carrier relationships, verification, and real-time data—will be key to reducing fraud and improving delivery performance.
