expense charges on variable universal life insurance investment portfolios), divide 72 by the fee. For example, if the Universal Life policy charges an annual 3% fee over and above the cost of the underlying investment fund, then the total account value will be cut to 50% in 72 / 3 = 24 years, and then to 25% of the value in 48 years, compared to holding exactly the same investment outside the policy. Choice of rule The value 72 is a convenient choice of numerator, since it has many small divisors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 12. It provides a good approximation for annual compounding, and for compounding at typical rates (from 6% to 10%); the approximations are less accurate at higher interest rates. For continuous compounding, 69 gives accurate results for any rate, since ln(2) is about 69.3%; see derivation below. Since daily compounding is close enough to continuous compounding, for most purposes 69, 69.3 or 70 are better than 72 for daily compounding. For lower annual rates than those above, 69.3 would also be more accurate than 72. For higher annual rates, 78 is more accurate. Note: The most accurate value on each row is in italics, and the most accurate of the simpler rules in bold. History An early reference to the rule is in the Summa de arithmetica (Venice, 1494. Fol. 181, n. 44) of Luca Pacioli (1445–1514). He presents the rule in a discussion regarding the estimation of the doubling time of an investment, but does not derive or explain the rule, and it is thus assumed that the rule predates Pacioli by some time. Roughly translated: Adjustments for higher accuracy For higher rates, a larger numerator would be better (e.g., for 20%, using 76 to get 3.8 years would be only about 0.002 off, where using 72 to get 3.6 would be about 0.2 off). This is because, as above, the rule of 72 is only an approximation that is accurate for interest rates from 6% to 10%. For every three percentage points away from 8%, the value of 72 could be adjusted by 1: or, for the same result: Both of these equations simplify to: Note that is quite close to 69.3. E-M rule The Eckart–McHale second-order rule (the E-M rule) provides a multiplicative correction for the rule of 69.3 that is very accurate for rates from 0% to 20%,