Jupiter-Saturn 20 years cycle

written by Sergey Tarassov


Recently I have got several questions regarding Jupiter-Saturn 20 years cycle. It looks like some discussion of its impact on the stock market has been conducted somewhere.Let us do it together. 

We start with the common sense consideration of the common market researcher. And here comes the disappointment. Why? By default, the cycle is some pattern repeated in time. In other words, assuming that some 20-year cycle exists (Jupiter - Saturn cycle is 19.9 years) we expect that the price history that reveals itself now (winter 2008) has some analogy to the price history 20 years ago, i.e. in the year 1988.  This is how the classic science and common sense understand cycles. However, look at this Jupiter-Saturn  cycle in details. I have calculated the moments when Jupiter conjuncts Saturn in heliocentric Zodiac and displayed them  together with Dow Jones Industrial history data from 1885 year (logarithm scale used):

The conjunction moments are marked by vertical stripes. You see these conjunctions divide  the whole history data file onto 20-year intervals. At this part, the cyclic idea works. The 20-year Jupiter-Saturn cycle exists. It is not the same in regards to price patterns. The hypothesis is that the same price patterns (or almost the same) should be present for all these intervals. 

I looked through all conjunctions and DJI around them and could not find any common sense analogy here. See yourself. Is there anything similar between these two six year intervals after Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions (years 1981 and 2000)?

I do not think so.

Or can you see any analogy between these three consequent 20 years intervals:


Does it mean that Jupiter-Saturn cycle on the markets does not exist? From the point of view of the formal math, it does: there are not found regular 20-year patterns for DJI, so the cycle does not exist. We may consider instead stochastic cycles (described in Chaos theory). Stochastic cycle is the cycle when the entity (the stock market in our case) keeps its structure - habits and behavior. 

I could leave here (as many critics of financial astrology do). I almost did it. But something stopped me from making this final conclusion. Actually we could consider instead stochastic cycles (described in Chaos theory). Stochastic cycle is the cycle when the entity (the stock market in our case) keeps its structure - habits and behavior. And - do you see where we are going from there? We have almost missed the fact applying formal math approach, and now we are getting to the research of behavior and habits - things that are the realm of astrology.  

I looked at this picture once again:

You see all these conjunctions divide the price history data on the intervals, and each interval has its own character. 

Between the years 1901 and 1921, Dow looks like a variation inside 50-100 points interval;

1921-1941 years - a roller-coaster, plus some new entity appears: multi-years trends;

1941-1961 years - one more entity appears: a relatively steady growth. Also WW2 took place in the beginning of this period.

You can easily continue  this analysis for all other periods. So it might be that instead of the theory that Jupiter-Saturn cycle means the repetition of the price patterns we should consider the beginning of this cycle (which is the conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn) as the beginning of a new period of Dow Jones behavior. 

My main point of this article is to distinguish between math based and astrological cycles. A cycle consists of the points that look similar In this particular case, the Jupiter-Saturn cycle works more as an astrological cycle, not a mathematical one. In other words, each conjunction defines the rules that the stock market will follow for the next 20 years. This is a "key" event that has effect for the next 20 years. In regards to this point, the methods of Natal and Financial Astrology are close to each other. 

How to work with this cycle? The application of statistical methods (like Composite analysis) does not provide results here (though you may try). I would prefer the old classical approach analyzing charts of each conjunction separately. For a mathematician, all these charts must be treated as one and the same - thus the cycles theory works, To an astrologer, each chart is different. And if looking for analogies, the astrologer will find first the charts that are the most similar.

First of all we need to decide what chart type is better for this research. I believe that Heliocentric Zodiac suits this purpose better. Next question is: "What we need to research first?" (i.e. what factors must be considered first).

Classic astrology divides all astro factors by dignity in two groups: "essential" - mostly related with planetary positions (or absolute positions in space); "accidental" - houses, aspects and other factors that are based on planetary positions in respect to other bodies or locality). It is very interesting that I have got a proof of the importance of this old definition in my researches. Essential dignities are prior to accidentals.

So I consider first the sign where this conjunction is culminated. Maybe we better look for the analogies on the market for the conjunctions in the same sign. Let us look at the last conjunction that has occurred in the year 2000. It has culminated in Taurus.  We have one more conjunction in the end of 1940 year that took place in 12th degree of Taurus. So, if we compare these two periods, we find more analogy there. In 40s, there was WW2; in 21st century, we have a global war against terrorism. See how DJI behaved in 40s: 

The second half of this period looks very promising, and it gives us some hopes for the next 12  years.

Classical Natal astrology has the time proven hierarchy of essential factors. You are able to research them all, if you would like to. The more factors coincide for two compared periods, the stronger is the chance of price pattern repetition. I have found interesting that in the conjunction charts for these two periods (40s and 2000s) both planets, Jupiter and Saturn, are peregrins (i.e., weak ones, with no dignities).

I have specially restricted myself to consider essential factors only. I do that because I believe that the methods of Natal astrology do not always work the same way for Financial astrology. To consider the accidental factors, we simply have not enough stock market history data to understand how these factors work for the stock market. Natal astrology applies them because it has a different subject (not the stock market movements) and thousands years of historical observations. The application of these rules to stock market forecasting is nothing more but the pure anthropocentrism.