Africa’s Vast Solar and Mineral Resources at Risk of Being Left Untapped, IEA Warns

Energy investment in Africa needs to more than double by the end of the decade if the continent is to meet its energy and climate goals. However, high costs are putting off much-needed investment in the region’s plentiful clean-energy resources and huge reserves of critical minerals, the International Energy Agency said.

“African countries have huge energy potential, including a spectacular range and quality of renewable-energy resources,” said Fatih Birol, executive director of the Paris-based agency in a report published jointly with the African Development Bank on Wednesday. “But these riches are largely untapped and they will remain so without greatly improved access to capital.”

Africa is home to more than half of the world’s best solar resources as well as possessing great potential for hydroelectric and wind-power projects, according to the IEA. It is also uniquely placed to contribute to industries behind the transition away from fossil fuels. It accounts for 80% of the world’s platinum reserves, half of all cobalt reserves, and 40% of manganese reserves, all of which are expected to be crucial to technologies such as autocatalysts and electric batteries, the agency said.

The report’s figures also pose a challenge for the West and the U.S. in particular, which is seeking to secure diverse sources of critical materials. In recent years, the West has lost clout in Africa as China has become the continent’s largest trading partner and fourth largest investor. Much of China’s investment in Africa goes toward energy projects and the nation’s lead in renewable technologies will likely see it grow as a funder of African renewable energy projects, the IEA said.

“Energy investment on our continent has fallen short,” wrote William Ruto, president of Kenya, in the report’s foreword. “It is imperative we take bold steps to more than double energy investment here in the next decade, with a primary focus on clean energy.”

From around $90 billion today, annual spending on Africa’s energy needs must more than double to $200 billion by 2030, two-thirds of which will need to go toward clean energy projects, the report said.

Despite the investment goal—which the IEA says will allow African nations to meet their agreed climate targets as laid out in the Paris Agreement and achieve universal access to modern energy systems—energy spending in Africa has been falling over the past five years as investment in fossil fuels has declined and spending on renewable energy projects has flatlined. The continent makes up just 3% of global energy spending.

The indebtedness of many African nations is holding back public spending on energy projects while private investors are reluctant to invest because of a prevalence of fragile states, absent regulations and perceptions of political or reputational risks.

All of these are pushing up the cost of capital which makes many African energy projects financially unviable despite ample local resources and proven technologies such as wind or solar power, the report said.

The cost of capital for a large-scale renewable energy project in Africa is up to three times higher than in advanced economies and China, the IEA said. For smaller projects, which will be crucial in rural areas, the costs are even higher.

Concessional financing—in which lenders such as international development banks offer developing nations more generous terms such as lower interest rates or longer repayment periods—will be crucial to overcoming those obstacles, the IEA said.

The IEA estimates that only half of electricity grid projects in Africa are commercially viable without such assistance, while most clean cooking projects would be unaffordable.

Despite accounting for 20% of the global population, investment in African energy projects is far too small, leaving much of the continent lacking basic access to electricity or clean cooking fuels, the IEA said.

Currently, 600 million people across Africa lack access to electricity and almost one billion have no access to clean cooking fuels.

$25 billion a year alone would be enough to provide basic access to electricity and clean cooking fuels to all Africans, equivalent to the cost of installing one LNG terminal, something European nations have done in record time following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The report came as African leaders met in Nairobi for the third and final day of the Africa Climate Summit, which has seen calls for debt relief for African nations facing the effects of climate change and hundreds of millions of dollars pledged to Africa’s nascent carbon credits initiative.

African nations are seeking redress for the effects of climate change they experience despite contributing little to carbon emissions, the main driver of global warming. The continent accounts for around 2% to 3% of global carbon emissions but is particularly exposed to extreme weather.

Berkshire began liquidating its big stake in the banking company in mid-July—and has already unloaded about 15% of its interest. The selling has been fairly aggressive and has totaled about $6 billion. (Berkshire still holds 883 million shares, an 11.3% interest worth $35 billion based on its most recent filing on Aug. 30.)

The selling has prompted speculation about when CEO Warren Buffett, who oversees Berkshire’s $300 billion equity portfolio, will stop. The sales have depressed Bank of America stock, which has underperformed peers since Berkshire began its sell program. The stock closed down 0.9% Thursday at $40.14.

It’s possible that Berkshire will stop selling when the stake drops to 700 million shares. Taxes and history would be the reasons why.

Berkshire accumulated its Bank of America stake in two stages—and at vastly different prices. Berkshire’s initial stake came in 2017 , when it swapped $5 billion of Bank of America preferred stock for 700 million shares of common stock via warrants it received as part of the original preferred investment in 2011.

Berkshire got a sweet deal in that 2011 transaction. At the time, Bank of America was looking for a Buffett imprimatur—and the bank’s stock price was weak and under $10 a share.

Berkshire paid about $7 a share for that initial stake of 700 million common shares. The rest of the Berkshire stake, more than 300 million shares, was mostly purchased in 2018 at around $30 a share.

With Bank of America stock currently trading around $40, Berkshire faces a high tax burden from selling shares from the original stake of 700 million shares, given the low cost basis, and a much lighter tax hit from unloading the rest. Berkshire is subject to corporate taxes—an estimated 25% including local taxes—on gains on any sales of stock. The tax bite is stark.

Berkshire might own $2 to $3 a share in taxes on sales of high-cost stock and $8 a share on low-cost stock purchased for $7 a share.

New York tax expert Robert Willens says corporations, like individuals, can specify the particular lots when they sell stock with multiple cost levels.

“If stock is held in the custody of a broker, an adequate identification is made if the taxpayer specifies to the broker having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold and, within a reasonable time thereafter, confirmation of such specification is set forth in a written document from the broker,” Willens told Barron’s in an email.

He assumes that Berkshire will identify the high-cost Bank of America stock for the recent sales to minimize its tax liability.

If sellers don’t specify, they generally are subject to “first in, first out,” or FIFO, accounting, meaning that the stock bought first would be subject to any tax on gains.

Buffett tends to be tax-averse—and that may prompt him to keep the original stake of 700 million shares. He could also mull any loyalty he may feel toward Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan , whom Buffett has praised in the past.

Another reason for Berkshire to hold Bank of America is that it’s the company’s only big equity holding among traditional banks after selling shares of U.S. Bancorp , Bank of New York Mellon , JPMorgan Chase , and Wells Fargo in recent years.

Buffett, however, often eliminates stock holdings after he begins selling them down, as he did with the other bank stocks. Berkshire does retain a smaller stake of about $3 billion in Citigroup.

There could be a new filing on sales of Bank of America stock by Berkshire on Thursday evening. It has been three business days since the last one.

Berkshire must file within two business days of any sales of Bank of America stock since it owns more than 10%. The conglomerate will need to get its stake under about 777 million shares, about 100 million below the current level, before it can avoid the two-day filing rule.

It should be said that taxes haven’t deterred Buffett from selling over half of Berkshire’s stake in Apple this year—an estimated $85 billion or more of stock. Barron’s has estimated that Berkshire may owe $15 billion on the bulk of the sales that occurred in the second quarter.

Berkshire now holds 400 million shares of Apple and Barron’s has argued that Buffett may be finished reducing the Apple stake at that round number, which is the same number of shares that Berkshire has held in Coca-Cola for more than two decades.

Buffett may like round numbers—and 700 million could be just the right figure for Bank of America.

Africa’s Vast Solar and Mineral Resources at Risk of Being Left Untapped, IEA Warns

High costs have put off most investors from buying into the continent’s plentiful clean-energy reserves

When will Berkshire Hathaway stop selling Bank of America stock?