British Prime Minister Gordon Brown might proclaim the G20 summit as the beginning of a "new world order" but the reality is the financial crisis will be around for some time yet. Don't get too worked up about markets' celebrating the trillion dollar G20 deal. It's a sucker's rally.

Why do I say that? First, there are a number of unanswered questions.

First, there is the issue of reining in the compensation claim schemes in the financial services sector which created all that excessive risk taking. The G20 endorsed the Financial Stability Forum principles on compensation which aim to reduce incentives towards excessive risk taking. On paper, they look fine and well thought out, placing the supervision of the compensation in the hands of directors and requiring compensation to be adjusted for all types of risk including difficult to measure risks like liquidity risks, reputation risk and cost of capital. Executives will not be given bonuses immediately when the risks are stretched out over time and where it's uncertain when the money will start coming in. Bonuses should be reduced or taken off the table when the firm starts performing badly so there will be no reward for failure. Furthermore, firms have to "clear, comprehensive and timely information" about their compensation practices.

This is all well and good but there is insufficient detail as to how exactly it's going to be implemented. Another problem is whether there will be different levels of regulatory oversight in different countries. We just don't know yet.

The other worry is the G20 suggesting that accounting rules could be eased back with improved standards that would "dampen adverse dynamics associated with fair-value accounting".

This is consistent with the Financial Accounting Standards Board ruling that allowing companies to use their own judgment to a greater extent in determining the "fair value" of their assets and thus avoid those nasty impairment charges.

As John Mason maintains in his Seeking Alpha column, it's an April Fools joke that has come one day late and it's a gift to the banks.

Think of it this way. Fair value accounting is the only way that lenders, depositors and shareholders would know about what condition the bank is in. Secondly, if companies are allowed to use their own judgement, it means there will be no objective criteria for assessing the value of the bank's assets. It means that the banks will still be able to take excessive risks and focus on short-term rewards. And finally, as Mason says, the problem might not be that the market for the banks assets are illiquid. It might be more a case that the banks themselves are insolvent and that this bit of accounting trickery allows them to hide that financial distress. And needless to say, the financial crisis will not be fixed until the banks are fixed.

So the financial and market performance of the banks might improve but the elephant is still in the room. Mason writes: "In truth, the condition of banks and other financial institutions has not changed! Those that are insolvent are still insolvent. Those that are not insolvent are still not insolvent. But, the public, the lenders, the depositors, the investment community, and the regulators are worse off. The change in the accounting rules is another bailout for the bankers!"

Is it any wonder, as ethicist Dov Seidman writes, that the real problem we have now is a breakdown of trust. People simply don't trust what corporations are telling them. And needless to say, this accounting pea and thimble trick will make it worse because people will have little faith in the numbers the banks are presenting.