Credit ratings agencies still under fire for their role in the GFC. Here's the Herald with the latest thoughts.

The essential conflict many of these agencies face is described here:

Critics want the cosy club inhabited by the three big credit ratings agencies to be replaced by a system with more accountability to investors, and less crippling conflicts of interest.

So what can be done to fix the credit rating agencies, seen by many as the unsung villains of the crisis?

Some suggestions include holding the firms responsible for their opinions in the courts, breaking up the oligopoly, and cutting investors' reliance on ratings. None is foolproof but each attempts to address the conflict of interest that was brutally exposed by the credit crisis.

A credit rating from one of the big three firms is virtually indispensable for companies looking to raise debt on the market. But it is now clear the incentives in the current system were skewed to encourage agencies to provide as many ratings as possible, at the expense of good advice.

For decades issuers have paid for the ratings because they need them most, and it has been in the agencies' interest to approve as many ratings as possible. However, the Bank for International Settlements says growth in structured finance - complex bundles of corporate debt - created huge systemic risks for this arrangement.