Based on the rule of 72, approximately how many years will it take to double the principal in an account which earns 3% of interest per year?
The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest. - Albert Einstein
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Do you know why this rule is true? What are its limitations?
Log in to reply
Yes, it is because the amount of time it takes to double your money is
ln
(
1
+
r
)
ln
(
2
)
(where
r
is the interest rate), so if
r
c
=
ln
(
1
+
r
)
ln
(
2
)
, then a good approximation for
c
where
0
≤
r
≤
0
.
1
6
would be
c
≈
0
.
0
8
ln
(
1
.
0
8
)
ln
(
2
)
≈
0
.
7
2
However this breaks down if
r
is significantly greater than
0
.
1
6
; for example, if
r
=
0
.
3
2
then
c
≈
0
.
8
0
, so you might as well make up the rule of 80 at that point. The reason we use the rule of 72 is because interest and similar concepts almost always occur at rates between
0
and
2
0
in the real world.
Now here's the part you may find interesting if you were previously unaware of it! I don't really like the rule of 72 for any purpose other than super-fast approximation. Here's a slightly better (and slower) rule: the rule of three tenths.
Given
r
, a better approximation for
c
is
c
≈
0
.
6
9
+
0
.
0
0
3
r
This works because
d
r
d
l
n
(
1
+
r
)
r
ln
(
2
)
≈
0
.
3
when
0
≤
r
≤
2
. Now let's try it out on a few well known interest problems:
Let r = 8 % . By the rule of three tenths, C ≈ 6 9 + 0 . 3 ∗ 8 ≈ 7 2 , so it takes roughly 7 2 / 8 = 9 years to double your money. This is verified by the rule of 72.
Now let r = 1 0 0 % . By the rule of three tenths, C ≈ 6 9 + 0 . 3 ∗ 1 0 0 ≈ 9 9 . Therefore it will take 9 9 / 1 0 0 = 1 year to double your money. This is verified by common sense (if you're making 100% per year, then it's doubling every year).
Here's my last example. If r = 0 % , then common sense tells us we will never double our money. By the rule of three tenths, C ≈ 6 9 . So it will take 6 9 / 0 years to double our... wait, that's indeterminate, as predicted. (the rules of 72, 69, and 69.3 have this property as well)
Let me know if you have a better rule-of-thumb or disagree with mine!
EDIT: I'll also add that we primarily use the rule of 72 because it has 12 divisors, making it easy to divide.
Log in to reply
Oh, it's actually easier than that.
ln ( 1 + r % ) ln 2 ≈ r % 0 . 6 9 = r 6 9
Maclaurin to the rescue. And, as you mentioned, we use 72 because it is more friendly to divide.
Where it breaks down, is when ln ( 1 + x ) ≈ x , which is for "large enough" values of x .
For further details, see this discussion
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – Do people use a rule of 70, if there are 5 years or 7 years? It doesn't make too much of a difference, though it could be nice to have an integer answer.
@Calvin Lin – Can we say lim x → 0 ( 1 + x ) x . 7 2 ≈ 2
Log in to reply
@Archit Boobna – yes, because e ln 2 = 2 .
I found out that the rule 72 works best with relatively low interest. For example the time it will take an investment to double is 12 years find the approximate interest rate implied by rule 72.Now suppose the doubling period is only 2 years .Is the approximation better or worse?
Log in to reply
That is a great observation.
To know what happens to the approximation, you have to understand how it is derived. There will be a percentage at which the approximation is closest to the true value, and then it diverges at other points.
The above comments with Caleb sheds more light on this. Look through them and see what conclusions you can draw. There is an elaborated thought process that you can look through too.
I did this after reading about the origin of e (being the limit n to infinity of (1+1/n)^n, discovered with compounding interest more and more). I thought the rule of 72 meant compounding the yearly interest of 3% 72 times a year. Meaning we get S(1+0.3/72)^(72t) = 2S as the equation to the problem. We can remove S on both sides and since 72 is quite high, we can approximate this to e^(0.3t) = 2. Meaning t = ln(2)/0.03 which is a bit more than 23. It takes 24 years.
Log in to reply
Right. ln 2 ≈ 0 . 6 9 so t ≈ 0 . 6 9 / 0 . 0 3 = 2 3 .
We further approximate this as t ≈ 7 2 / r (with r in percent), because 72 has several small factors that allow us to easily deal with r = 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , … .
Slightly different method than rule of 72:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
|
The rule of 72 allows you to make a quick 2-second calculation on the spot, which is why it's worth remembering.
here is my guy with his python. thank's a lot, bro
No need for any rule, the only real candidates are 18 or 24 years (2 or 3 too low, 36 or 72 too high ), common sense : pick 24
Well what would you have picked if their was no option or the options wer e 1 8 , 1 9 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 2 , 2 3 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6
Please post valid solutions not those posted on an uncommon 'common sense'
I may have cheated and used a log base 1.03 (2) = 23.45...
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
The rule of 72: if you earn X % interest per year, then your money will take approximately X 7 2 years to double. Since X = 3 , the approximate number of years to double is 3 7 2 = 2 4