The following commentary was originally posted on, the website of Motley Fool Asset Management, LLC, on Nov. 6. With permission, we're reproducing it here in an edited form.

"Win or lose, we go shopping after the election." -- Imelda Marcos

Thank heavens our long early evening nightmare here in Northern Virginia is over. No more Robocalls interrupting dinner, random knocks on the door waking sleeping babies, or foreboding television ads making it hard to enjoy watching football. Yes, election season has ended, and I suspect anyone who lives in a "swing state" shares my delight.

Of course, while we can probably all agree to be glad that campaigns are through for a while, it's probably a more divided group when it comes to whether you are happy with the results of the election. And although there may be one or two people who follow through on that quadrennial promise to move to Canada, the fact is that win or lose, most of us keep on keeping on.

As Imelda Marcos knew, that's the right tack -- particularly when it comes to investing the way we go about investing. See, we're not economic forecasters, nor do we let our opinions about what we think policymakers should be doing influence the companies we buy and sell. Instead, we examine the hand the world is being dealt and seek out the companies best able to play that hand profitably for shareholders. More times than not, those companies are the same whether GDP growth is going up or down, or regulations grow more permissive or restrictive. That's because a well-run company is by definition adaptable to the circumstances in which it finds itself, with a management team that will make smart capital allocation decisions in light of those same circumstances. This is one of the reasons our turnover ratio so low (it takes a lot for a company that makes it into the portfolios to get booted) and why you won't see us trading health care companies or alternative energy firms in reaction to election results (if a company is only successful because of a short-term policy change, that's not the kind of company we want to own).

That said, there's at least one problem in America today that we hope someone will start addressing: the plummeting opinion that Americans have of the stock market.

Just another game rigged against you
According to data collected by the University of Chicago and Northwestern University, just 15% of Americans trust the stock market, while a study by MFS Investment Management revealed that 40% of 18- to 30-year-olds believe they will never feel comfortable enough with stocks to invest in them. Ask Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL) if the stock market is rigged, and you'll find far more arguments for why individuals should not invest than for why they should. And that sentiment was an issue in this year's election. A voter featured in an ad here in Virginia, for example, declared "If George Allen wants to risk his own money on Wall Street, that's fine. But I don't want him risking mine."

Now, I'm not calling for the privatization of Social Security or even looking to defend Wall Street's reputation -- which is rightfully in tatters after more than a decade of scandals, bubbles, and dishonesty. Rather, what I'm suggesting is that the concept of investing as we practice it here at Motley Fool Funds is a very different idea from that of "Wall Street" or even "the stock market." While we deal with people on Wall Street who help us trade stocks on markets around the world, these relationships act as means to an end rather than an end in itself.

The end of investing
Think about it: Wall Street could cease to exist and the stock market could shut down tomorrow, and there would be little effect on the intrinsic value of the holdings in our portfolios. That's because investors' money is not beholden to either of these institutions, but has purchased ownership stakes in great non-Wall Street-based companies such as Costco, Berkshire Hathaway, and TOD's s.p.a. -- companies that would go on creating value for us and for you even if this world were deprived of leveraged buyouts, derivative securities, and algorithmic trading. In other words, the question when it comes to investing in those stocks is not: "Do you trust Wall Street?" or "Do you trust the stock market?," but "Do you trust Jim Sinegal to keep doing right by his employers, customers, and suppliers?," "Do you trust Warren Buffett to keep allocating capital efficiently and effectively?," and "Do you trust Diego Della Valle to keep making the absolute highest quality leather goods?"

Far more than 15% of Americans would likely answer "yes" to these questions, which makes it a tragedy that so many Americans are avoiding stocks today. Yes, they've reduced their exposure to "Wall Street," but in so doing, they have deprived themselves of any relationship to the wealth being created daily by the world's smartest and most dedicated entrepreneurs. That's a decision that will cost many dearly as they seek to achieve their long-term financial goals.

If you are reading this, odds are you are not among this group. But you probably have friends and family in this group, and as the holiday season approaches, make a point of reaching out to them this year and communicating that investing in the world's great businesses is not equivalent to putting your money on black in a world that always comes up red. Together, we might be able to save investing's reputation.

Editor's note: Tim Hanson is not able to engage in discussion on the boards or in the comments section below. Tim owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway.

This article represents the opinion of the writer, who may disagree with the “official” recommendation position of a Motley Fool premium advisory service. We’re motley! Questioning an investing thesis -- even one of our own -- helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.