The result reported by CBA chief Ian Narev is enough to nourish the critics. Credit:Brendon Thorne But the result is good enough to nourish the critics, led by the government which is now squirming after its decision not to force a royal commission into the big banks' behaviour. For the government this is all about the optics. The decision by the banks not to pass on the full rate cut doesn't merit any kind of investigation. That was no breach of its social licence. That was just business. But Wednesday's record profit will nonetheless give rise to some spot flare ups in the public relations guerilla war being waged by sections of the government. Thus CBA's chief executive Ian Narev feels the need to present a two-faced view of the result. On the one hand he wants to crow about being one of the world's most profitable banks (using the conventional measure of return on equity).

On the other hand he needs to play defensive – a result that's too strong verges on avaricious profit grasping. 'Contributing to Australia's well being' Thus CBA's public statement about its full-year result barely mentions profits and returns, focusing instead on its customer satisfaction results, which were industry leading – ie the least unpopular. CBA's contribution to new technology and innovation was also a feature of its performance sales pitch. But most of the focus was on how the bank was "contributing to Australia's well being".

So let's drill down into how the CBA says it has achieved this: In 2016 it paid out $7 billion in dividends. The point the critics make is that too much money was given to shareholders at the expense of the bank's customers. The bank highlights it paid $6.2 billion in wages and salaries. But this is not a public service, rather it's a cost of doing business – as are the $4.2 billion in payments to suppliers. And last but not least the bank is looking to get some public credit for the $3.6 billion it paid in tax. Nothing voluntary about that – it's the law. To the extent CBA is saying that it is an important part of the fabric of the economy – we are all already aware of this.

But CBA is a business first. Narev would have us believe that in not passing on the full interest rate cut but giving some sugar to other customers via paying a higher rate on deposits he is balancing the needs of both sets of customers. Here is a taste of what Narev told financial analysts on Wednesday morning, "We ... get it that the customers 'hope and expect' they'll get as much benefit as they can from the cash rate coming down. "But we've also got 11 million depositors, and we've also got 800,000 households who own our shares and millions more who own them through the pension funds.

"And just like the home loan customers, these are Australians from all walks of life, this is not the elite of Australia. So we hear from our deposit customers, 75 per cent of whom are aged over 55, that the low interest rate environment has caused them real pain in their income, and is actually affecting their day to day decisions on what to spend." Actually Narev's balancing act has more to do with maximising profits than apportioning largesse among different groups of customers. He went on to say: "We also hear from the Australian households who own our shares, how important some degree of security of the dividend is to them." He said the combined investment of retail shareholders and super funds in the CBA was about $100 billion. Clearly the bank does need to put its shareholder returns as its first priority. But if it places customers' needs too far down the list it will ultimately lose them and in doing so damage profits and shareholder returns.

Loading The banks don't need to be investigated because they didn't pass on rate cuts. Rather it is the numerous other behavioural deficiencies they have been caught out on – from appalling mistreatment of some of the personal advice to customers to their insurance practices and alleged manipulation of the bank bill swap rate to boost their own profits. All businesses try to maximise their profits. Banks are no different.