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 surfaced amid his recent public stateme...

Is Ross Gerber Tesla’s Top Investor?

Introduction

The claim that Ross Gerber is Tesla's top investor has surfaced amid his recent public statements urging Elon Musk to step down as CEO. Gerber, a prominent wealth manager and long-time supporter of Tesla, has expressed concerns regarding Musk's focus on other ventures, particularly his role in the government, which he believes is detrimental to Tesla's performance. This article will explore the context of Gerber's statements, his position as an investor, and the implications of his call for Musk's resignation.

What We Know

  1. Ross Gerber's Investment in Tesla: Gerber is recognized as a significant investor in Tesla, having been involved with the company for many years. His firm, Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management, has been vocal about its support for Tesla, although specific details about the size of his investment or his exact ranking among Tesla investors are not publicly available 16.

  2. Call for Musk's Resignation: On March 19, 2025, Gerber publicly stated that Musk should either refocus on Tesla or resign from his position as CEO. He cited Musk's involvement in other business and political activities as distractions that could harm Tesla's performance 245.

  3. Concerns Over Tesla's Valuation: Gerber's comments come at a time when Tesla's market valuation has reportedly been declining. He attributes this decline to Musk's divided attention and the resulting impact on sales and company reputation 510.

  4. Public Statements and Media Coverage: Gerber's remarks have been widely covered in various media outlets, including Sky News, CNBC, and Fortune, indicating that his views are gaining traction in discussions about Tesla's leadership 2410.

Analysis

Source Evaluation

  • Credibility of Sources: The sources cited in this article include reputable news organizations such as Sky News, CNBC, and Fortune. These outlets are generally considered reliable for business news, although they may have varying degrees of bias based on their editorial slants. For instance, Sky News and CNBC typically provide straightforward reporting, while outlets like the Daily Mail may have a more sensationalist approach 48.

  • Potential Bias: Gerber's position as a wealth manager could introduce a conflict of interest, as his firm's financial success may be tied to Tesla's performance. This could lead to a bias in his public statements, as he may have a vested interest in influencing Tesla's management decisions 610.

  • Methodology of Claims: While Gerber's assertions about Musk's impact on Tesla's valuation are based on observable market trends, the exact correlation between Musk's activities and Tesla's stock performance is complex and may not be directly attributable. The analysis of stock performance typically requires a broader context that includes market conditions, investor sentiment, and industry trends 59.

Supporting and Contradicting Evidence

  • Supporting Evidence: Several reports highlight Gerber's long-standing support for Tesla, which lends credibility to his concerns about its leadership. His call for Musk to step down is framed within a context of declining stock prices and market challenges, which many analysts have noted as significant issues for the company 35.

  • Contradicting Evidence: Conversely, some analysts argue that Musk's leadership has been integral to Tesla's success and innovation. They suggest that his multifaceted interests may actually benefit Tesla in the long run by expanding its brand and market reach 610. Additionally, there is no definitive evidence linking Musk's political engagements directly to Tesla's stock performance, making it difficult to assess the validity of Gerber's claims fully.

What We Don't Know

  • Investment Details: More specific information about the size of Gerber's investment in Tesla and how it compares to other major investors would provide clearer context regarding his influence and motivations.

  • Market Analysis: A comprehensive analysis of Tesla's stock performance, including external factors such as market competition and economic conditions, would be beneficial to understand the full scope of the company's challenges.

  • Musk's Response: As of now, Musk has not publicly responded to Gerber's call for resignation, and his future plans regarding Tesla remain unclear.

Conclusion

Verdict: False

The claim that Ross Gerber is Tesla's top investor is misleading. While Gerber is indeed a significant investor in Tesla, there is no publicly available evidence to substantiate the assertion that he holds the top position among Tesla investors. The lack of specific investment details and rankings makes it impossible to definitively categorize him as the leading investor. Furthermore, the context of his public statements, which include calls for Musk's resignation, may reflect personal or professional biases rather than an objective assessment of Tesla's leadership.

It is important to note that the complexities of stock performance and investor influence cannot be reduced to simple claims. The relationship between Musk's activities and Tesla's valuation is multifaceted, and attributing declines solely to his distractions lacks comprehensive evidence.

Readers should remain aware of the limitations in the available evidence and critically evaluate claims regarding investor positions and their implications for corporate leadership. The nuances of investment dynamics and market conditions warrant careful consideration 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. Will Elon Musk step down as Tesla CEO? Top investor Ross Gerber calls ... - Economic Times. Link
  6. You're Just 'Being Foolish' If You Ignore Climate Change, Says Ross ... - Yahoo Finance. Link
  7. Dean Barber's Post. LinkedIn. Link
  8. Top Tesla investor issues brutal ultimatum to Elon Musk. Daily Mail. Link
  9. Elon Musk Should But Probably Won't Step Down As Tesla ... - Dorf on Law. Link
  10. Tesla shareholder Ross Gerber says Elon Musk should step down as CEO ... - Fortune. 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