TMT Is 65% of US Investment Banking. Australia Runs on FIG and Mining Instead

Every second comment under a banking video is some version of "how do I break into tech banking". Fair enough, TMT (tech, media and telecom) coverage looks glamorous from the outside, it is the sector American finance content is built around. The problem is that most of the people asking are in Sydney or Melbourne, not New York, and the Australian market is not built the same way.

According to Alex Euripidou, TMT accounts for roughly 65 per cent of the US investment banking market, while Canada's market is about 49 per cent financials, and Australia's investment banking market runs on FIG (Financial Institutions Group) and mining instead of tech.

Copy the American playbook in the wrong country and you end up chasing deal flow that barely exists here. This article breaks down why that happens, what the sector split actually looks like market by market, and which lane you should be targeting if you are trying to break into investment banking in Australia specifically.

Why doesn't Australia have a big tech (TMT) banking sector?

Because the underlying economy is different, and investment banking coverage groups exist to serve the companies that actually raise capital and do M&A in that market. The US has thousands of large-cap tech, media and telecom companies constantly raising debt, doing acquisitions and going public, which is why TMT bankers are so in-demand there and why roughly 65 per cent of the US market sits in that sector.

Australia does not have that density of large-cap tech companies. What it does have is a heavily weighted financial services sector (the big four banks, insurers, superannuation funds and asset managers) and one of the largest mining and resources sectors in the world. That is where the deal flow, the fees and the analyst seats actually sit, so that is where the coverage teams are biggest.

What sector should I actually target in Australian investment banking?

FIG or mining, if you want to be in the sectors with the deepest coverage teams and the most consistent deal flow. FIG covers the banks, insurers and asset managers, mining and resources covers everything from iron ore majors to junior explorers doing capital raises. Both sectors have entrenched, well-staffed coverage groups at the bulge bracket and local banks operating in Australia, because that is what the local market is actually built on.

This does not mean tech-adjacent deals do not happen here. It means a graduate optimising purely for "the sector that's trending overseas" is optimising for the wrong market. Pick the sector your local market is actually built on, that is where the deal flow, the fees and the analyst spots are.

How do investment banking sectors differ by country?

Here is the sector breakdown as it stands market by market, straight from the source data in the original post. Where a percentage was given it is included, where it wasn't the description is qualitative (a directional read on where the market weighting sits, not a hard number).

The pattern across every market is the same: the dominant coverage sector tracks whatever the local economy is actually built on. The US is a tech and telecom economy, so TMT dominates. Switzerland's economy runs on pharma and healthcare, so that is the dominant coverage sector there. France is a luxury goods economy. Australia is a financial services and resources economy, so FIG and mining are where the deal flow lives.

Is FIG or mining the better lane to break into in Australia?

There is no universal answer, it depends on what actually interests you and where your prior experience or academic background points. FIG rewards people who are genuinely interested in financial services structuring, regulation and the banks themselves. Mining and resources rewards people who can get comfortable with commodity cycles, project finance and the operational side of resource companies. Both are viable, well-staffed, consistently active sectors in the Australian market, which is the point. Neither is a consolation prize compared to tech banking, they are simply what the Australian market is actually built on.

What about Canada, the UK, Switzerland and France, does the same logic apply there?

Yes, and it is the reason a one-size-fits-all "break into tech banking" playbook falls apart the moment you look at any market outside the US. Canada's market being about 49 per cent financials means Canadian graduates chasing the same TMT playbook as their American peers are working against their own market's actual weighting. The UK spreads across finance, mining, consumer and healthcare rather than concentrating in one sector, so UK graduates have more optionality across coverage groups than either the US or Australian market allows. Switzerland and France each concentrate hard around one dominant local industry (healthcare and luxury respectively), which is exactly the same phenomenon playing out in miniature economies built around a specific export strength.

The takeaway for anyone applying internationally: research the sector weighting of the specific market you are applying into before you build your story around a coverage group preference. A polished "I want to do TMT" answer lands very differently in a New York interview than it does in a Sydney one.

If you want the fuller breakdown of how this fits into building an actual application strategy for the Australian market, rather than importing a US-shaped one, my free AUS Complete Guide briefing covers the full framework across every major track, it is a free read.

FAQ

What is FIG in investment banking?

FIG stands for Financial Institutions Group, the coverage team that works with banks, insurers, asset managers and superannuation funds. In Australia it is one of the two dominant coverage sectors (alongside mining and resources), reflecting how large the local financial services industry is relative to the rest of the economy.

Why doesn't Australia have a big tech (TMT) banking sector?

Because TMT coverage teams grow around large-cap tech, media and telecom companies doing constant M&A and capital raising, and that density of large-cap tech companies exists in the US (around 65 per cent of the US market) far more than it does in Australia. Australia's deal flow instead concentrates in financial services and mining, so that is where the biggest coverage teams and analyst seats sit.

What sector should I target if I want to break into investment banking in Australia?

FIG or mining and resources, since those are the sectors with the deepest, most consistently active coverage teams in the local market. Chasing a TMT-first strategy because it is the trending sector overseas means competing for deal flow and analyst seats that are comparatively thin here.

Does this same logic apply if I want to work overseas after graduating?

Yes. Every market's dominant coverage sector tracks what that local economy is actually built on, financials in Canada (about 49 per cent), a spread across finance, mining, consumer and healthcare in the UK, healthcare in Switzerland, luxury in France. If you are applying into a specific country, research that market's actual sector weighting rather than assuming your home market's playbook transfers directly.

Is mining and resources banking only relevant if I am based in Perth?

No. Mining and resources coverage teams operate out of Sydney and Melbourne as well as Perth, since the banks servicing these clients are headquartered in the major financial centres even though many of the underlying resource assets sit in Western Australia and Queensland.

This started as a post on my Instagram, follow for the next one.

If you are set on Australian investment banking and want the firm-by-firm detail on where FIG and mining coverage teams actually sit, along with WAM thresholds and application timing, the AUS IB Top 300 Firms Playbook is $12 AUD and built for exactly this.

If you are still weighing up which sector or lane actually fits you rather than which one is trending, Career Path Mapping is a $99 AUD personalised 1:1 that maps your specific situation instead of a generic playbook.