Become a Member

written by reader 72 – The Rule of 72

By SoGiAm, April 10, 2016

Rule Of 72 according to Investopedia:
What is the ’Rule Of 72’
The rule of 72 is a shortcut to estimate the number of years required to double your money at a given annual rate of return. The rule states that you divide the rate, expressed as a percentage, into 72:

Years required to double investment = 72 ÷ compound annual interest rate

Note that a compound annual return of 8% is plugged into this equation as 8, not 0.08, giving a result of 9 years (not 900).

Next Up
COMPOUND INTEREST
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE YIELD – APY
COMPOUNDING
RETURN
BREAKING DOWN ’Rule Of 72’
The rule of 72 is a useful shortcut, since the equations related to compound interest are too complicated for most people to do without a calculator. To find out exactly how long it would take to double an investment that returns 8% annually, one would have to use this equation:

T = ln(2)/ln(1.08)=9.006

Most people cannot do logarithmic functions in their heads, but they can do 72 ÷ 8 and get almost the same result. Conveniently, 72 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 12, making the calculation even simpler.

The rule can also be used to find the amount of time it takes for money’s value to halve due to inflation. If inflation is 6%, then a given amount of money will be worth half as much in 72 ÷ 6 = 12 years. Nor does the unit have to be money: the rule could apply to population, for example.

Adjusting For Higher Rates
The rule of 72 is reasonably accurate for interest rates between 6% and 10%. When dealing with rates outside this range, the rule can be adjusted by adding or subtracting 1 from 72 for every 3 points the interest rate diverges from 8%. So for 11% annual compounding interest, the rule of 73 is more appropriate; for 14%, it would be the rule of 74; for 5%, the rule of 71.

For example, say you have a 22% rate of return (congratulations). The rule of 72 says the initial investment will double in 3.27 years. Since 22 – 8 is 14, and 14 ÷ 3 is 4.67 ≈ 5, the adjusted rule would use 72 + 5 = 77 for the numerator. This gives a return of 3.5, meaning you’ll have to wait another quarter to double your money. The period given by the logarithmic equation is 3.49, so the adjusted rule is more accurate.

Adjusting For Continuous Compounding
For daily or continuous compounding, using 69.3 in the numerator gives a more accurate result. Some people adjust this to 69 or 70 for simplicity’s sake.
Source:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ruleof72.asp?utm_term=rule+of+72&utm_content=sem-unp&utm_medium=organic&utm_source=&utm_campaign=&ad=&an=&am=&o=40186&askid=&l=dir&qsrc=999&qo=investopediaSiteSearch

I encourage all to invest in dividend stocks; the sooner the better.
This discussion is created to discover and share their due diligence of those equities. Best2All-Ben

This is a discussion topic or guest posting submitted by a Stock Gumshoe reader. The content has not been edited or reviewed by Stock Gumshoe, and any opinions expressed are those of the author alone.

guest

12345

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

52 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
👍 11604
lottifab
Irregular
January 18, 2020 10:13 am

Hi Travis
I found this old post randomly…
I just wondered what do you think about Dividend investing particularly, and why I couldn’t find the DIVIDEND KINGS among the huge list of newsletter reviews… Strange, is there a reason for this? I thought it was basically a complete enciclopedie of a kind about newsletters..
thanks

Add a Topic
152
Add a Topic
3551
Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe
January 18, 2020 5:53 pm
Reply to  lottifab

New letters get created every day, so we certainly miss some.

👍 21780
savethemanatee
savethemanatee
January 19, 2020 11:24 am
Reply to  lottifab

Hello lottifab,

I can’t speak for Travis, of course, but perhaps I can add some info, some of which you may already know.

(1) I assume you are referring to the Dividend Kings pay service that is offered through Seeking Alpha? If so, I wouldn’t classify it as a “newsletter” like the type Travis typically reviews, because they don’t tease and tout individual stocks–they provide a framework for analyzing and assessing large numbers of DGI companies. They may conclude that some companies are over or under priced, but it is a very different tone from true newsletters that focus on individual stocks.
(2) Again, assuming this is what you’re referring to–the authors who contribute to Dividend Kings provide a ton of free content on Seeking Alpha, so it is easy to see what they are like. I’m honestly not sure what the Dividend Kings provides other than the archives of old articles they’ve written, which disappear behind the paywall after a few weeks. that’s the part I’m guessing you already know. Maybe there are a few more regular articles, but the style and type of information is undoubtedly similar.
(3) Chuck Carnavale, who I think is amazing, provides a TON of free material on seeking alpha, and reposts his videos on the youtube page of his service/product, fastgraphs. Let me say that Fastgraphs is an amazing tool, and I’ve subscribed to it for several years, and I use it significantly when valuing established companies. Let me also add that I have my own complicated spreadsheet for helping determine whether to purchase shares in a company, which takes about an hour to input and analyze the data, which pretty much always agrees with what fastgraphs will tell me in three minutes (although my spreadsheet will filter out some companies that may be decent buys but don’t have the profile I prefer). If a buy is below a certain price point, I will generally now just rely on fastgraphs. It is well worth the price if you are thinking of subscribing and I highly recommend it. ESPECIALLY for dividend growth companies.
(4) I am primarily a dividend growth investor, and am a great believer of that strategy and filtering technique. It makes sense for a variety of reasons, including that it enables one to extract value on a regular basis without having to sell anything. It also makes price fluctuations irrelevant if you can stand the psychological hit of seeing your portfolio value go down. As long as a company keeps paying a steadily-growing dividend, who cares whether the share price goes up and down? The only thing that matters is that the dividend stream isn’t at risk.
(4)(a) (bonus) so in choosing dividend growth companies to invest in, I am preferably looking for companies that have either a decent dividend or that have experienced steady growth and expected to continue to grow at a decent rate in the future. Slow-growth companies with a low yield (and low dividend growth in recent years) I typically pass on. I recently sole Emerson Electric because it has fallen into that camp. Obviously, what is REALLY preferrable are companies that have it all: a reasonable yield, that have had high dividend growth in recent years, and are expected to grow at a high rate, AND that don’t appear to be grossly overpriced through a quick look at fastgraphs–they are very hard to find in today’s market, but they do exist. About a year ago, I stumbled upon Lam Research, which had those qualities, and it is up a ton since then. Recently I took a stab at Tractor Supply–the dividend yield is below average, but it has been raising it at an above-average rate, the company’s earnings growth has been terrific in recent years, and it appears to be relatively fairly valued–which makes it undervalued in today’s market of insane valuations.

That’s about it. For the record, I own shares in about 150 different dividend growth companies, although I pared a few recently–some because it seems like they’ve frozen their dividend (Johnson Controls, General Mills–both of which froze their dividends some time ago, but the beauty of being a DGI investor is that you only have to check up on them once or twice a year or so), and some because there seems to have been a drastic change in the company’s fortunes that may last several years, and will likely impact their dividend growth and earnings growth rates (like Federal Express, Boeing). I find I am unable to really differentiate among the many dividend growth banks, so I own shares in many of them. Same with the large pharmaceuticals (although I sold Merck last year because it seemed to be the most overvalued of them all, and I didn’t see why it was necessarily going to be any better than its competitors).

Happy to add more if you’re interested.

Add a Topic
3551
👍 2310
👍 11604

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

More Info  
9
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x