I take from your question an implication that there are some conflicts of interest here and that therefore this may not be entirely appropriate.
In terms of the rating agencies, certainly one of the lessons out of this global crisis, as reflected in the FSF report and the IOSCO code of conduct for credit rating agencies, which was published on May 28, is the need to resolve issues around potential conflicts. The main one is this issue about credit rating agencies advising companies and at the same time rating the subsequent issue. There are new rules that say that if you advise on the structure you cannot also be the rater.
There is a broader debate about conflicts in credit rating agencies; for example, about who should pay the credit ratings, the issuers or the investors. That's a difficult one, because there are issues on both side. If investors paid, for example, they might not be too thrilled to have a downgrade. As in any of this kind of oversight role, where there are payments being made there are issues, and the key is to manage those.