crash: when you remove money from your t-ira, how do you calculate the amount to remove such that you don't land yourself in a new worse tax bracket given that your totals for the year aren't known until year's end, if that makes any sense? thanks!

Not crash (re: roth conversions/income): I use last years tax calculator online and also last years tax return. If they tell me I can convert 50K stay in certain tax bracket and owe $x, I'll convert 40k in January. Then around Nov when the real next years tax calculators are available I'll fine tune the final conversion/withdrawal. On final withdrawal withhold $fed, $state, and whatever is left is for me.

Per CNBC:
T. Rowe Price shares rallied Thursday after the asset manager struck a $1 billion deal with Goldman Sachs to sell private-market products to retail investors.
Goldman will buy up to $1 billion in T. Rowe Price common stock through open-market purchases with the intention to own up to 3.5%, according to the announcement. The two financial firms will team up to offer wealth and retirement funds that give access to private markets for individuals, financial advisors, plan sponsors and plan participants.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/04/t-rowe-price-shares-rocket-higher-after-deal-where-goldman-will-invest-1-billion-in-asset-manager.html
... the speed that Wall Street is inserting private-market products into retail products is certainly worth watching. Frankly, it makes me uncomfortable since most retail investors have no idea how to do any DD into their funds and see what kind of stuff (er junk?) their portfolios are being stuffed with. IMO Wall Street is again trying to offload its riskier assets onto the rubes who will suffer WHEN (not 'if') things go south in this space.

fred walks and bs talks with yet another information-free reply.
contrast with this post from fred who :
- explains his rationale
- gives his current positioning
- estimates his likely changes
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/64547/portfolio-allocation-ideas-strategies
i personally have been in preservation mode since FIRE in ~2018, and am up a few % after all family expenses and luxuries. my actions may only be selectively useful to anyone...e.g., actions in individual stocks are an intellectual hobby whereas for others it may be all they want to do.

Thank you, Mr. Hindsight.

Where is the hindsight?
The above phrase is from another poster on another site that has been wrong for about 15 years now. When he posted about his timing, it was a disaster.
I sold on 2/29/2020 and posted about it on several sites, including this one.
I sold early in 2022, and bought in 11/2022 and posted about it. This is why I made 9+% in 2022.
There is plenty of evidence of my portfolio performance.
Several in my circle of traders all have done it.
It's obvious you can't do it, so your only response is trashing.
People like you are responsible for why I (and other great traders) don't post these anymore.
It doesn't bother or affect us, but posters have been interested for years. Actually, 1 of them joined our group after he paid attention for years and started using it.
Basically, you score a giggle, but others lose.

Regarding the infrastructure fund, this could be reflective of infrastructure moving into another phase. With all the political noise (e.g. FEMA not funding disaster reconstruction, alternative energy projects cancelled, bridge construction threatened), I haven't taken much of a look at the bigger picture.
Infrastructure burst onto the investment scene about 15-20 years ago. In the US and elsewhere, post WW2 and older infrastructure was decaying. (It still is.) There was an expectation that lots of money would be poured into pouring concrete. Things change and this fund could just be changing along with that.
30 years or so ago, my father owned shares of the Energy Fund. Energy used to be a heavily regulated industry and companies provided reliable income and limited growth. With deregulation, energy no longer fit that description. The fund gradually deemphasized energy, becoming Selected Sectors, and then Focus Fund. It evolved into a broad based large cap fund, and today is classified as a global large cap fund. Industries change.
Likewise, this DoubleLine fund is gradually deemphasizing infrastructure, reducing that sector from 80% to 50% of its holdings.
Like DoubleLine Floating Rate fund, this infrastructure fund will be "adopted" by American Beacon.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/64517/doubleline-floating-rate-fund-to-be-reorganized
Side note: N&B funds, including Focus Fund, are in the process of doing a reverse split for an unusual reason. The original (investor) shares are not being split (or reverse split), but other share class shares are, in order to bring their prices closer together. Minor changes, something like 1: 0.95 (reverse split) or 1:1.01 (split).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/44402/000089843225000623/form497.htm

CFTC reversal now.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/polymarket-authorized-for-u-s-return-days-after-donald-trump-jr-joins-as-advisor-c3c8b348
Open https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2025/09/03/u-s-cftc-gives-go-ahead-for-polymarket-s-new-exchange-qcx
Open https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/polymarket-set-for-u-s-launch-after-getting-green-light-from-cftc-ceo-says/ar-AA1LOqnJ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymarket

SENTIMENT & MARKET INDICATORS, 9/3/25
AAII Bull-Bear Spread -10.7% (below average)
CNN Fear & Greed Index 52% (neutral)
NYSE %Above 50-dMA 66.54% (positive)
SP500 %Above 50-dMA 58.50% (positive)
These are contrarian indicators.
INVESTOR CONCERNS: Tariffs, inflation, jobs, Fed, debt, budget, dollar, recession, geopolitical, Russia-Ukraine (184+ weeks), Israel-Hamas (67+23 weeks).
For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks down, bonds up, oil down, gold up strongly, dollar flat.
FOMC will have new data on jobs, CPI, PPI by 9/17/25. Global central banks now hold more gold than US Treasuries. Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO 2025) in China included XI, PUTIN & MODI among 2 dozen regional leaders.
#AAII #CNN #Sentiment
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/2192/thread

I've not kept my circumstances a secret. Doing a lot of investing for heirs, colored by a simultaneous streak of concern for preservation. The political scene these days is a dysfunctional and abominable cluster-flop. I'm about 53 stocks and 46 bonds, and just a percent or so in cash. 40% of total is in PRWCX, so that's a giant step toward good sleeping at night.
28% of my 46% in bonds is Junk. Deliberately wanting the yield. 18% of total is in 3 single-stocks. Quite happy with them, so far. Dividend payers. A few years before RMDs are due, I'm already taking a few or several thousand each January from the T-IRA, reducing, ostensibly, the size of the RMDs when it comes time for that.
I used to always be trying to diversify for its own sake, but more recently have taken the advice of the late Charlie Munger. "Don't be doing that for its own sake." Heaviest in Info Tech, not because I like those Big Name slimeballs, but because my mutual funds are there. A close 2nd-place is Financials, lagging by just 1%, 26 to 25. Only 4.35% of stocks is in International.
The Market ignores politics and ethics (or lack thereof) until it just won't, anymore.

As expected, Robert Gardiner is joining in as Portfolio Manager of Grandeur Peak Global Contrarian Fund (GPGCX)
He also becomes one of PMs at Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund (GPGOX / GPGIX) - arguably Grandeur's next "best" fund he could take over without bumping the long-time manager of Grandeur Peak Global Micro Cap (GPMCX).
Grandeur has also done some general reshuffling with RG becoming "Guardian PM" at several funds.
Finally, they have effectively reorganized Grandeur Peak Global Explorer Fund (GPGEX) - did not realize they could do it without a shareholder vote - while dropping the fee a bit,
https://grandeurpeakglobal.com/shareholder-communications/2025-prospectus-updates/
and filed a new fund: Grandeur Peak International Contrarian Fund (GICYX) to be "managed by the Grandeur Peak investment team with primary responsibility assigned to Blake Walker".
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1965454/000158064225001779/gpgt-485a.htm
With the mess that Grandeur became after RG's departure, I had pulled out most assets invested with them - except for GPGCX that was, imo, well-managed by Madsen - and maintained only a few token positions. After holding through the transition period since Madsen left, I am happy to see that GPGCX is back in good hands (one hopes that RG has not lost his touch) and might also put some money back into GPGIX. I do not have very much confidence in any of their other managers: whether "guarded" by RG or not.

On another investment forum, a thread has recently been started to share portfolio allocation thoughts & strategies for discussion/comparison. I thought it would perhaps be a worthwhile exercise and/or learning experience to have a similar thread on this topic on this forum. Here was my contribution:
As a retired investor, "I dislike volatility!", to quote keppelbay. Especially in the current uncertain market and political environment, preserving capital is more important to me than chasing returns on capital. I prefer to err on the side of caution since I don't need a lot more money, and all my expenses are covered by generous pensions and Social Security.
Currently, my conservative portfolio allocation is as follows:
- 45% Bond OEFs (APDPX, DHEAX, PYLD and RCTIX)
- 30% CDs
- 25% Alternative OEFs (QDSNX and QLENX)
Once the CDs mature next year, I may shift my portfolio allocation to the following:
- 60% Bond OEFs (will probably add BINC and/or ESIIX)
- 25% Alternative OEFs (no change)
- 15% Allocation OEFs (probably split between PMAIX and PRCFX)
Hopefully, this will be a "sleep well portfolio" by keeping the standard deviations of the allocation and the alternative OEFs below 10%, and the bond OEFs below 5%. Of course, nothing is set in stone. I will always be dancing near the exit if the circumstances warrant it.
Good luck.
P.S. Based on Portfolio Visualizer, and back testing with a start date of July 2023 (inception date of PYLD), my current portfolio would have had an annualized return (CAGR) of 10.5% with a standard deviation of 2%, and a 0.47% correlation to the S&P 500.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1511699/000089418925006788/leutholdgrizzlyshortfundpr.htm
Managed Portfolio Series (the “Trust”)Leuthold Grizzly Short FundSupplement dated September 3, 2025to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Informationdated January 28, 2025, as amended
Reverse Stock Split – Leuthold Grizzly Short Fund (GRZZX)
The Board of Trustees of the Trust, on behalf of its series, the Leuthold Grizzly Short Fund (the “Fund”), has approved a one-for-four reverse stock split of the issued and outstanding shares of the Fund. After the close of markets on September 22, 2025, the Fund will effect a reverse split of the Fund’s issued and outstanding shares of common stock held by shareholders of record at the close of business on September 22, 2025. No trading in the Fund will be permitted on September 22, 2025, the day of the stock split, or on September 19, 2025, if the trades settle on the day of the stock split. The shares of the Fund will be offered on a split-adjusted basis beginning on September 23, 2025.
As a result of the reverse stock split, every four shares of the Fund will be exchanged for one share of the Fund. Accordingly, the number of the Fund’s issued and outstanding shares will decrease by 75%, and the Fund’s per share NAV will increase fourfold. The reverse share split provides shareholders of Fund with fewer shares of the Fund, but the total dollar value of a shareholder’s investment in shares of the Fund, will not change due to the reverse stock split, and each shareholder will continue to own approximately the same percentage (by value) of shares of the Fund immediately following the reverse stock as the shareholder owned immediately prior to the reverse stock split. The reverse stock split will not be a taxable event, nor does it have an impact on the Fund’s holdings or performance.The total dollar value of a shareholder’s investment will not be affected by the reverse stock split. The table below illustrates the effect of a hypothetical one-for-four reverse split on a shareholder’s investment:..

Been easing in to a thinly traded (though broad based) ETF.
1. Average volume figures may be worthless. This fund had what may have been a heartbeat blip on a single day large enough to bring the monthly/3 month average volume up into six figures.
2. Daily volume figures may be worthless. Some days, trade volume spikes (near six figures) in literally the last minute of trading (3:59PM plus a few seconds). That could be authorized participants swooping in to pick up mispriced bids (or asks). With such low volume, it may not be worth their while to nickel and dime during the day but go for everything at once. Just a guess. Doesn't seem to happen when markets have been fairly stable through the day.
3. My objective is to move some money from an OEF (priced at close of market) to this ETF. To make a sort-of-simultaneous trade, I should violate the "don't trade near close" rule of thumb. By making a bid near but not at the top of the outstanding bids, I can hope that there is this last minute flurry of activity and that it is the bids (not the asks) that the APs go after.
How does one track the IIV (intraday indicative value) of ETFs generally? I know that some fund sponsors post this on their websites but I'm looking for a more general solution. (I'm using a broad based, high volume ETF in the same space as a proxy for the trend.)
---
A also bought a heavily traded short term fixed income ETF.
Price fluctuated a couple of pennies. I finally figured that it wasn't worth a lot of effort to save a few bucks on the whole transaction.
No takers on my bid a penny below market price. I could have waited and never gotten my order filled. I could have bid a penny higher. Instead, given the stability of prices and the near certainty that the price wouldn't be more than a penny higher, I placed a market order. Got that filled at just 1/3 penny above my original bid. This approach only seems good for very stable prices. Still, I watched the current price as a pushed the "place order" button.
---
Level II quotes:
I've been looking at Fidelity Active Trader Pro and ToS. I'm not impressed with either, because they both seem to give incomplete listings. (I'm looking at the thinly traded ETF, so this isn't a question of there being too many offers to display all of them.) Fidelity's platform shows the actual number of shares in the asks and bids, while ToS only shows units of 100's. So while Fidelity might show a bid for 116 shares, ToS shows 1 (i.e. 100) bid.
This whole process seems similar to school classes. No matter how much you study, if you don't do the exercises, you won't really get a feel for the material. I'm still "practicing".

i have been a significant net equity seller since 2024 nov., moving far away from S&P500 correlation\mimicry.
however, in 2025 i have been picked small positions in a weird group far away from the AI hysteria...some of the best managed companies around.
(picking up a bit from the wealthtrack thread, my limit order just hit for heineken)
not only are these companies usually far smarter than their competitors, but they will survive beyond the stupidest policies of the gop. (unless specifically extorted, of course).
i.e., if anyone can make profits in their sector, it will be them, and the bumps they may be hitting are meaningless over their long term history. some even have major catalysts priced at nothing.
has anyone notice this kind of opportunity?

Asked Bing AI for top 5 picks
Ticker Fund Name 5 Yr 10 Yr 15 Yr 20 Yr
FCNTX Fidelity Contrafund 14.6% 15.8% 13.2% 9.1%
FBGRX Fidelity Blue Chip Growth Fund 17.8% 18.0% 14.9% 10.7%
PRPFX Permanent Portfolio Fund 4.3% 5.9% 6.6% 5.3%
AGTHX American Funds Growth Fund of America 13.5% 14.7% 11.9% 8.9%
TRBCX T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund 18.3% 16.1% 12.3% 10.5%
VFINX Vanguard 500 Index Fund 13.0% 13.7% 10.2% 7.8%

sometimes you have to be super detailed to have AI actually do the research you want it to. Will Danoff is almost 70. He largely manages Contrafund himself. Im not sure i'm all in on that bet for the next 20 years. If you followup and say given the age of the managers, are you sure? It will usually go "GREAT POINT IN LIGHT OF THAT HERE IS A NEW LIST" and you are like well why didn't you consider that in the first place!
FBGRX is impressive but they cast off the diversified label so they could be 15% NVDIA (paid off so far).

Howdy folks,
I think you were trolling me with this thread.
I have been recommending a 3-7% stake in precious metals in everyone's portfolios for decades. More than that is speculation, which is fine, but it can be very dicey. The game is so very rigged, it's tough to win.
There are many ways to take position. Safest is physical bullion. Geez, a roll of American Gold Eagles is the size of quarter and 2" tall. Hide it in the Oatmeal. It's worth about $75K. Get a 100 oz bar of silver, paint it black and use it as a door stop. About $4500. You can buy ETFs that invest in bullion but you pay 28% in gains. Ouch. You can hedge this with some weird products or simply stash them in a deferred or exempt account. You can buy the mining stocks. My only homerun was in the Big Bonanza that took place in in 2002-2011 period. I bought Silver Wheaton in the $2-3 range and it went to $43. There is nothing quite so exhilarating as playing the penny silver miners. Pure nose bleed.
You don't even have to simply play the PMs and can take a broad based stance in commodities with any number of funds and/or ETF. Again, determine if they're in mining stocks or the actual commodities. Even though they more or less mirror each others performance, they are played in different markets that act different ways. I've been collecting coins for 70 years and I don't have a clue.
If you're thinking about establishing a new position in the metals, I'd really suggest a Dollar Cost Averaging tactic. If you're a momentum investor, you might consider scaling in.
Peace,
And so it goes,
rono

SCOTUS is misshapen, spineless, misguided, abstruse nonsense. More here re: Orange unconstitutional tariff pap, from 02 Sept, 2025:
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/02/what-trump-court-loss-means-for-billions-in-tariffs-paid-to-government.html
Since Day One, the Orange method = we'll do whatever we want. Anyone doesn't like it? Let them sue. He asserted that very thing, as President, just last week. So... forget procedures, rules, emoluments clauses or the entire Constitution. That stuff is for OTHER people to worry about. Orange feces.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1545440/000158064225005663/kempner497.htm
97 1 kempner497.htm 497
September 2, 2025
ULTIMUS MANAGERS TRUST
Kempner Multi-Cap Deep Value Fund
Institutional Class (FIKDX)
Investor Class (FAKDX)
Supplement to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated September 28, 2024
Assignment of Investment Advisory Agreement and Expense Limitation Agreement
Effective August 9, 2025, upon the passing of Harris L. (“Shrub”) Kempner, Jr., President and owner of Kempner Capital Management, Inc. (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Kempner Multi-Cap Deep Value Fund (the “Fund”), an assignment of the Investment Advisory Agreement between Ultimus Managers Trust (the “Trust”), on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser occurred, resulting in the automatic termination of both the Investment Advisory Agreement and the Expense Limitation Agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser.
All references to Mr. Kempner with respect to the Fund are hereby removed from the Fund’s Prospectus and SAI. M. Shawn Gault remains as portfolio manager of the Fund.
Interim Investment Advisory Agreement and Interim Expense Limitation Agreement
An interim investment advisory agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”), with substantially the same terms as the existing investment advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Prior Advisory Agreement”), except for the start and end date of the agreement as required under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”) and rules thereunder, has been approved by the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) at a meeting held on August 21, 2025 (the “Meeting”) and became effective as of August 10, 2025.
Under the Interim Advisory Agreement, the Adviser provides the same advisory services to the Fund on the same terms provided under the Prior Advisory Agreement. There are no changes to the advisory fees payable by the Fund to the Adviser under the Interim Advisory Agreement.
In addition, at the Meeting, the Board approved an interim expense limitation agreement (the “Interim Expense Limitation Agreement”), between the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser because the prior expense limitation agreement for the Fund (the “Prior Expense Limitation Agreement”) terminated upon the termination of the Prior Advisory Agreement. The terms of the Interim Expense Limitation Agreement are substantially similar to those of the Prior Expense Limitation Agreement except for the start and end date of the agreement. The expense limitation for each share class of the Fund is identical to the respective expense limitation under the Prior Expense Limitation Agreement. The Interim Expense Limitation Agreement became effective as of August 10, 2025.
Liquidation of the Fund
Effective immediately, the Fund has terminated the public offering of its shares and will discontinue its operations effective October 15, 2025. Shares of the Fund are no longer available for purchase and, at the close of business on October 15, 2025, all outstanding shares of the Fund will be redeemed at net asset value (the “Liquidation”).
1
At the meeting, the Board, in consultation with the Adviser, approved the discontinuation of the Fund’s operations based on, among other factors, the Adviser’s belief that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders to discontinue the Fund’s operations. Through the date of the Liquidation, the Adviser will continue to waive investment advisory fees and reimburse expenses of the Fund, if necessary, in order to maintain the Fund at its current expense limits, as specified in the Fund’s current Prospectus.
In connection with the Liquidation, the Board directed that: (i) all of the Fund’s portfolio securities be liquidated in an orderly manner not later than October 15, 2025; and (ii) all outstanding shareholder accounts on October 15, 2025 be closed and the proceeds of each account, less any required withholding, be sent to the shareholder’s address of record or to such other address as directed by the shareholder, including special instructions that may be needed for Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) and qualified pension and profit sharing accounts. As a result of the Liquidation, the Fund’s portfolio holdings will be reduced to cash or cash equivalents. Accordingly, going forward, shareholders should not expect the Fund to achieve its stated investment objective. The Adviser will bear all of the expenses of the liquidation with the exception of brokerage costs associated with the orderly transition of the Fund’s portfolio holdings to cash and cash equivalents.
Shareholders may redeem all or a portion of their shares of the Fund on any business day prior to the Liquidation as specified in the Fund’s Prospectus.
The Liquidation will be considered for tax purposes a sale of Fund shares by shareholders, and shareholders should consult with their own tax advisors to ensure its proper treatment on their income tax returns. In addition, shareholders invested through an IRA or other tax-deferred account should consult the rules regarding the reinvestment of these assets. In order to avoid a potential tax issue, shareholders generally have 60 days from the date that proceeds are received to re-invest or “rollover” the proceeds into another IRA or qualified retirement account; otherwise, the proceeds may be required to be included in the shareholder’s taxable income for the current tax year.
For more information, or to obtain a copy of the Fund’s Prospectus or SAI free of charge, please contact the Fund at 1-800-665-9778.
Investors should retain this supplement for future reference.

OJ, not to worry, there have been many naysayers in the last 15 years.
In this (link) you can find several trades I made in crucial markets.
In fact, I posted my sale on 2/29/2020 on this site.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/55299/bond-mutual-funds-analysis-act-2/p2
LarryB, My trades were never perfect; I never claimed they were. When I'm wrong, I'm out of the market for up to a week. When I'm right, I was out for several weeks (in 2018, 2020, 2025) to 10 months in 2022. I can't do it with a lot of money, think above 10-20 million; after all, I trade in/out mutual funds. There were already times when the mutual company restricted me from trading their funds too often.
I don't need to prove anything anymore. All the real discussions happen now off the boards.
This is a screenshot in early 2020 (https://ibb.co/k2SKDPPg)
This is a screenshot of 2022 (https://ibb.co/1tKzDR4j)

If you have the same after-tax starting value at $78K, then a percentage-based tax is a linear operator. It doesn't matter if you double the money first and then apply the tax, or apply the tax and then double the money.

Correct. This addresses the question: is one better off contributing now to a Roth or to a traditional IRA? In that situation what matters is whether the future tax rate will be higher, lower, or equal to the current tax rate.
I was addressing a slightly different question: does allocation between tax free and tax deferred accounts matter? For that question, it doesn't matter what tax rates you might have been subject to in contributing to the Roth. You've already made your bed. Now you have to lie in it and allocate investments across whatever dollars you've put into the different accounts, traditional and Roth.
You are suggesting that rapid growth of tax-deferred moneys will move some of those assets into a higher future tax bracket vs. the future tax bracket all of those dollars would have been with slower growth. Perhaps. Bear in mind that tax brackets are adjusted for inflation, so the growth rate of import is the excess growth over inflation, not total growth. Still, one hopes with more aggressive investments, that this will be significant.
When one speaks of being in a higher bracket at retirement, one is looking at the size of RMDs. The first dollar gets taxed at one rate determined by considering all other ordinary income and then looking at the marginal rate. Subsequent RMD dollars get taxed at that rate or a higher rate if the RMD extends through brackets. Hence my assumption that the total RMD is taxed at the same marginal rate in retirement.
That's not always true, as you say (below). Often it is. Consider an individual, age 73, in the 22% bracket excluding RMDs. If that individual falls at the top of the bracket, virtually all RMD dollars will be taxed at 24%, whether from fast or slow growing investments. If that individual falls at the bottom of the bracket, they'll have nearly $55K of "space" to fill. They'd need a T-IRA of almost $1.5M for the RMD to exceed that (age divisor is 26.5). Put them at the midway point and the T-IRA would need to be around $750K before the tax brackets mattered.
The 24% bracket is even wider. The bracket where RMD size is most likely to matter is the 12% bracket. That's only $36K wide. If one is at the midpoint in that bracket, then a $500K T-IRA will have an RMD touching the next bracket. And since that next bracket at 22% is a whopping 10% higher, it becomes more important here to try to keep every last RMD dollar out of that bracket.
So it really depends on the situation. Personally, the part of the RMD trap that I'm more concerned about is having RMDs greater than needed for expenses. This is where Roth conversions years before retirement help. And for this purpose, it is better to keep slower growing assets in T-IRAs.

This equivalence only holds true if you assume the tax rate at withdrawal remains constant. In the real world, if doubling your traditional account pushed you into a higher tax bracket in retirement, the "Traditional Doubles" scenario would result in a lower after-tax total.

A place where slower growing assets can be even more beneficial is in HSAs. Suppose someone has been healthy (so has had few medical expenses during accumulation phase) and has a sizeable HSA. Then it is possible even in retirement that total medical expenses will not exceed the HSA value. If that happens, the excess dollars rather than being tax-free can get taxed as ordinary income upon withdrawal.

Not sure why you picked a scenario with both traditional and Roth at same $78K, who actually has that ratio?

The ratios don't matter. I just wanted to provide a concrete example. 100/0 or 0/100 wouldn't work when the question was how to allocate between non-zero T-IRA and Roth accounts. 50/50 is a simple split and it facilitated assuming 50% of the money was invested one way and 50% another.
Had I used a 20/80 split between accounts with the same investment assumption (half fast growth, half no growth), then the 20% account would have been invested one way along with 3/8 of the 80% account. The remaining 5/8 of the 80% account (i.e. half the total assets) would have been invested the other way. Same result, but I'd lose people with all the fractions and percentage.