In which Greg Smith, (now former) Goldman Sachs executive director, offers a master class on how to compose a letter of resignation.

tl;dr: Goldman is lately less about making money for its clients than making money for Goldman and I want no part of these shenanigans.

…cuz Goldman Sachs’ Global Alpha fund is coming to an end. Clients are withdrawing their moneys left and right, and word has it the fund is down -12% YTD:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the fifth-biggest U.S. bank by assets, will shut its Global Alpha fund after clients pulled money from the quantitative trading pool that was once the firm’s largest hedge fund.

Goldman Sachs, led by Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein, 56, has been shrinking Global Alpha since 2007 when it lost 40 percent because of bad bets on currencies, equities and bonds worldwide. The fund’s co-managers Mark Carhart and Raymond Iwanowski quit in March 2009, and Katinka Domotorffy took charge of the quantitative investment strategies unit, which uses computers to pick securities and oversees $56 billion.

What will all those computers do when they’re not needed to pick securities any more? Remember that GM commercial where the robot jumped off the bridge when it lost its job? We’re picturing something like that, unless the PPT is hiring. But on the bright side, at least the laid-off stock-picking machines can’t file for unemployment.

So as it happens, during hearings before a Senate panel last year, Goldman’s Lloyd Blankfein might have lied a little (a lot) about his firm’s position in the mortgage market. We know, we should have asked you to sit down before reading this shocking news. Trust us, we were every bit as surprised (none) as you were. But, and you should sit down for this, there’s an outside chance Lloyd may face perjury charges because of it. Sure, this is a little like Al Capone going to prison for tax evasion, or a lot like it depending on your personal opinion on the $GS CEO, but beggars can’t always be choosers.

Almost a year ago, during the hearings starring trader Fab Tourre, Blankfein strolled in with a prepared statement in which, naturally, he explained in long and detailed terms just how they’re just a simple bank trying to make their way in the world and no way would they ever do anything shady because that’s not the American way. The key snippet is:

The fact is we were not consistently or significantly net “short the market” in residential mortgage-related products in 2007 and 2008. Our performance in our residential mortgage-related business confirms this.

After putting your tax dollars to work for the past couple of years, the subcomittee has decided that this statement is true, on opposite day. The 639-page (tl;dr) report names other institutions, such as all of them, but Goldman gets the most attention because let’s face it, everybody’s a hater. It’s like when you saw those pictures of Ke$ha in a bikini and you felt better because that girl is shaped WEIRD.

Goldman, for its part, has released a statement saying it fundamentally disagrees with the panel’s findings. This, coincidentally, is my favorite defense: no, you can’t our own words as proof that we were doing anything wrong just because we said we were doing exactly what you accuse us of doing. Despite not doing anything wrong, Goldman has agreed to change the way it does business, but that’s not an admission of guilt or anything.

“We recently issued the results of a comprehensive examination of our business standards and practices and committed to making significant changes that will strengthen relationships with clients, improve transparency and disclosure and enhance standards for the review, approval and suitability of complex instruments.”

Honestly, the odds of Lloyd actually seeing the inside of San Quentin (or, more likely, Englewood, but we can dream) are slimmer than a runway model.  But just the thought that we might collectively get our pound of flesh is just so darn thrilling. Why, if a banker goes to prison for this, our homes will recover their values, the unemployed will find jobs again, business will re-open, and all the damage will be undone. So it’s something to get excited about.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you and I had devised a deal that would make us a lot of money at the expense of someone else. We would, of course, never do such a thing, but let us pretend. This being the 21st century, we would, naturally, communicate about this deal via email. We would be honest about the deal in these emails, because we like to think that there is such a thing as privacy anymore. Pretend also that we were brought before Congress for a stern talking-to for the deal, and that these emails were brought out and used against us. Quoted verbatim, even, profanity included. Imagine we were sued over this deal and forced to pay a fine that is larger than the GDP of seven countries.

What lesson might you or I be expected to take away from this? Would it be the lesson that, despite recent years, we would no longer be allowed completely free reign to do as we pleased in pursuit of the almighty dollar? Would it be that we should practice discretion in our communication, saying nothing privately via written record that we would not want made public? Might we even pause to re-evaluate our lives and our place in the world, concluding that there is such a thing as enough money, and scaling back our operations to allow others more in need to share in our riches? Yes, we might do some or all of those things. But neither of us is Goldman Sachs, who would never do any of those things. They would, instead, react by banning profanity in company email.

The New York company is telling employees that they will no longer be able to get away with profanity in electronic messages. That means all 34,000 traders, investment bankers and other Goldman employees must restrain themselves from using a vast vocabulary of oft-used dirty words on Wall Street, including the six-letter expletive that came back to haunt the company at a Senate hearing in April.

In the hypothetical future, we would instead refer to a “gosh-darn deal that stinks like a skunk in a sauna” which more than makes up with imagery what it lacks in conciseness. Besides, we couldn’t use “s****y” anyway.

Mr. Montag, who couldn’t be reached for comment, wouldn’t be allowed to send that email under Goldman’s sanitized communications policy, which is being enforced by screening software. Even swear words spelled with asterisks are out.

Don’t think you can get your Carlin on just by jumping to another bank, either. $JPM, $MS, and $C also have similar policies. Really, if you can’t control yourself, your only option may be the Navy. Except maybe not even there, either.

If anyone should come across a list of banned words, please do the right thing and forward it to us.

Documentary maker Ric Burns (brother of Ken) is in the middle of shooting (what else) a documentary about vampires and squids, so naturally Goldman came up. This hard-hitting piece will expose, once and for all, the seedy underbelly of America’s most evil corporation, shining the light of truth and justice on its many misdeeds, and bringing an end to the culture of greed that has permeated Wall Street for decades. It will do for the banking industry what The Jungle did for meatpac-

What? Oh.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. is paying for the film, has editorial control and is overseeing the project through its marketing department, a Goldman spokesman said.

So much for that, then. One supposes this will work out exactly as if Burns’ most well-known work, The Civil War, had been financed by Sons of Confederate Veterans (hint: not well).

Also, there’s this:

The documentary is for employees only, meaning YouTube might be the only chance that other people will have to see the film.

Naturally, we’ll link you to it as soon as we get our grubby mitts on a copy.