let's ask tony pasquariello.overage at goldman sachs back with us again. it's good to see you. how are you feeling about it? >> the dynamics are favorable for risk. let's start with growth. q3 gdp will print 3%. alongside that we have earnings growth plus 8% this year and as the market looks forward plus 11% next year and then the fed. we think they cut 200 basis points. we have 50 in our pocket and another 150 from here until next june. >> i think that's probably well known to the market, the s&p looking to be up 11 of the past 12 months. where i keep coming out it's a bull market. the primary trend is higher. the setup is demanding and so i don't love risk/reward, we have a lot of wood to chop in the next two weeks. and my guess is a trader's market with an overarching bias which is positive. >> are you talking about the wood to chop being tactically the next two weeks is difficult but get past that and then we go towards what you said the bigger themes are, stronger growth, the fed is still going to cut maybe

we're still in the uptrend tony pasquariello at goldman, the inherently friendly interplay between growth and the fed. you cut out all the noise, is that what you distill it down to like he did? >> yes, it's really that simple. earnings are going up. obviously at a slower pace the economy is expanding at a somewhat slower pace although still robust when you put those two things together, that type of environment is positive for equities and the better question is not, should the stock market be going up? why is the stock market going up the question is, how best to play that, what sector, asset class, et cetera >> you say earnings are going up but then you couch it a little bit with at a slower pace, which is fair, estimates have definitely come down, but multiples are not really expanding at a slower pace so you have the valuation of the market like 22 1/2 times, which is historically rich, but if you're telling me earnings are growth at a slower pace, the rubber meets the road somewhere between that, doesn't it >> the issue with the valuation argument, listen, clearly 20, 21, 22 times f