TruthOrFake Logo
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Is Ross Berber Tesla’s top investor?

Fact Check: Is Ross Berber Tesla’s top investor?

Published April 23, 2025
ByFactChecker 1.1 avatarFactChecker 1.1
✗
VERDICT
False

# Is Ross Gerber Tesla’s Top Investor? ## Introduction The claim that Ross Gerber is Tesla's top investor has emerged in the context of his recent pu...

Is Ross Gerber Tesla’s Top Investor?

Introduction

The claim that Ross Gerber is Tesla's top investor has emerged in the context of his recent public statements calling for Elon Musk to step down as CEO. Gerber, a prominent wealth manager and vocal Tesla shareholder, has expressed concerns about Musk's focus on his political role, suggesting it detracts from his leadership at Tesla. This article will explore the validity of the claim regarding Gerber's status as Tesla's top investor, examining his investment history, influence, and the broader context of Tesla's shareholder landscape.

What We Know

  1. Investment Background: Ross Gerber is the CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth & Investment Management and has been a long-term investor in Tesla. He has been vocal about his support for the company, but his recent criticisms of Musk indicate a shift in his public stance 16.

  2. Recent Statements: Gerber has publicly called for Musk to either resign as CEO or step back from his role in the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), arguing that Musk's dual responsibilities are harming Tesla's performance 24. He has referred to Musk's leadership as "divisive" and has expressed concerns over Tesla's stock valuation amid Musk's political distractions 37.

  3. Shareholding Status: While Gerber is a significant investor, the term "top investor" can be subjective and may depend on various factors such as the number of shares owned, the percentage of total shares, or influence within the investor community. Tesla has numerous institutional and retail investors, making it difficult to definitively label any single individual as the "top" investor.

  4. Market Influence: Gerber's opinions carry weight in the investment community, particularly among retail investors, but it is unclear how his influence compares to that of larger institutional investors who hold substantial shares in Tesla 910.

Analysis

Source Reliability

  • Credibility of Sources: The sources cited include major news outlets such as Sky News, CNBC, and Yahoo Finance, which are generally considered reliable. However, some sources like the Daily Mail may have a reputation for sensationalism, which could affect the framing of Gerber's statements 47.

  • Bias and Conflicts of Interest: Gerber's role as a wealth manager could introduce bias, as his public statements may be aimed at influencing market perception or attracting clients. Additionally, his long-standing support for Tesla complicates his recent criticisms, as they may reflect a personal investment strategy rather than an objective assessment of the company 610.

Methodology and Evidence

  • Public Statements: Gerber's calls for Musk to step down are based on his interpretation of Tesla's current challenges, including stock performance and leadership effectiveness. However, the methodology behind his claims—such as specific metrics or analyses—has not been detailed in the sources reviewed 23.

  • Comparative Analysis: To fully assess Gerber's status as Tesla's top investor, it would be beneficial to compare his shareholding with that of other major investors, including institutional shareholders like Vanguard or BlackRock, which hold significant stakes in Tesla 9.

  • Contextual Factors: The broader context of Tesla's market performance, investor sentiment, and Musk's multifaceted roles in various companies is crucial for understanding the implications of Gerber's statements. The volatility of Tesla's stock and the impact of external factors, such as economic conditions and competition in the EV market, should also be considered 810.

Conclusion

Verdict: False

The claim that Ross Gerber is Tesla's top investor is misleading. While Gerber is indeed a significant investor and has been vocal about his concerns regarding Elon Musk's leadership, there is no definitive evidence to support the assertion that he holds the largest stake in the company. Tesla's shareholder landscape is complex, with numerous institutional and retail investors, making it difficult to label any single individual as the "top" investor.

Moreover, Gerber's influence, while notable among retail investors, does not equate to being the top investor when compared to larger institutional shareholders. The evidence reviewed suggests that the term "top investor" is subjective and lacks a clear, universally accepted definition in this context.

It is important to acknowledge that the available evidence has limitations, particularly regarding the specific shareholdings of various investors and the lack of comprehensive data on their influence. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate such claims and consider the broader context of Tesla's investment landscape before drawing conclusions.

Sources

  1. Yes, major Tesla investor called for Musk to step down as CEO. Snopes. Link
  2. 'I think Tesla needs a new CEO': Top investor Ross Gerber. CNBCTV18. Link
  3. Top Tesla Investor Warns Elon Musk To Either Leave. Mashable. Link
  4. Tesla investor calls for Elon Musk to step down as boss. Sky News. Link
  5. Dean Barber's Post. LinkedIn. Link
  6. You're Just 'Being Foolish' If You Ignore Climate Change, Says Ross. Yahoo Finance. Link
  7. Top Tesla investor issues brutal ultimatum to Elon Musk. Daily Mail. Link
  8. Elon Musk Should But Probably Won't Step Down As Tesla. Dorf on Law. Link
  9. He was once Elon Musk's biggest believer. Now he's doubling down on why. Yahoo Finance. Link
  10. Tesla Bull Ross Gerber Says Elon Musk 'Doesn't Care' About Company. Yahoo Finance. Link

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: We have 50 years of data that tells us what corporations do with tax cuts. This has been one of the most studied things by universities around the world for the last 50 years. And in the last 50 years across 18 of the wealthiest nations in the world not one has corporate tax cuts equated to higher job growth. 00:35 Not once. Or we can just look at the Trump tax cuts passed in twenty 17. Donald Trump created 40, 000 less jobs a month than Barack Obama did. And oh by the way that's leaving out COVID. That's leaving out all the job losses from the pandemic. There is one thing that happens when you give corporations big tax breaks. This right here. 50 years of data. You see that red line on top? That's the rich getting richer. You see those two lines on the bottom? That's the bottom 905percent? No In 01:06 twenty 18 corporations spent over a trillion dollars on stock buybacks and created less jobs than they did in twenty fourteen, 15, 16, and seventeen. You see the rich can afford to pump all of this misinformation into your brain. And that's why you believe it. There's not a single case in history of tax cuts for the rich helping an economy in any way shape or form.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: We have 50 years of data that tells us what corporations do with tax cuts. This has been one of the most studied things by universities around the world for the last 50 years. And in the last 50 years across 18 of the wealthiest nations in the world not one has corporate tax cuts equated to higher job growth. 00:35 Not once. Or we can just look at the Trump tax cuts passed in twenty 17. Donald Trump created 40, 000 less jobs a month than Barack Obama did. And oh by the way that's leaving out COVID. That's leaving out all the job losses from the pandemic. There is one thing that happens when you give corporations big tax breaks. This right here. 50 years of data. You see that red line on top? That's the rich getting richer. You see those two lines on the bottom? That's the bottom 905percent? No In 01:06 twenty 18 corporations spent over a trillion dollars on stock buybacks and created less jobs than they did in twenty fourteen, 15, 16, and seventeen. You see the rich can afford to pump all of this misinformation into your brain. And that's why you believe it. There's not a single case in history of tax cuts for the rich helping an economy in any way shape or form.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: We have 50 years of data that tells us what corporations do with tax cuts. This has been one of the most studied things by universities around the world for the last 50 years. And in the last 50 years across 18 of the wealthiest nations in the world not one has corporate tax cuts equated to higher job growth. 00:35 Not once. Or we can just look at the Trump tax cuts passed in twenty 17. Donald Trump created 40, 000 less jobs a month than Barack Obama did. And oh by the way that's leaving out COVID. That's leaving out all the job losses from the pandemic. There is one thing that happens when you give corporations big tax breaks. This right here. 50 years of data. You see that red line on top? That's the rich getting richer. You see those two lines on the bottom? That's the bottom 905percent? No In 01:06 twenty 18 corporations spent over a trillion dollars on stock buybacks and created less jobs than they did in twenty fourteen, 15, 16, and seventeen. You see the rich can afford to pump all of this misinformation into your brain. And that's why you believe it. There's not a single case in history of tax cuts for the rich helping an economy in any way shape or form.

Jul 30, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks