Let's take a look at this possibility. These banks are expanding rapidly, and they are running out of money -- at least many of the banks needed to be bailed out. So why not continue to spend money on building new mega-branches? I understand that you need to get your businesses where the customers are, but spending money right now isn't the wisest thing for some of the bigger banks to do. More banks means more building costs, more land costs, and more employee costs -- I just feel that the banks may be better served if the money was spent elsewhere, or not at all.

Take a look at Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX). Part of the coffee company's struggles is due to overexpansion -- could it happen with the banks? With banks trying to get to the urban (and suburban) hot spots, we could see these financial institutions overstretch their means. Could this mean that the banks fall by the wayside? I doubt it, but I have learned to never say never in this economy.

On another note, I hope that bailout money wasn't used for expansion, mainly because of the appearance of impropriety. Perhaps no bailout money went into the expansion, and the moves could have been planned for quite some time. That said, this expansion could raise some questions and stir public ire toward banks, which is already running high. What is worse: using public money to fund trips to the spa or to open more locations in order to make more money in the future? I know, expansion hardly compares to spa trips, but I would rather the banks use the bailout money to make sure this crisis never happens again -- not making sure there is a location on every corner.