A reader makes some good observations:

I think the biggest difference between the Enron collapse and the Fannie/Freddie is the business environment. Enron’s losses were dwarfed by the internet bubble losses as well, but those were perceived as part of market forces. Fannie/Freddie’s collapses have come on the heels of Bear Sterns, Countrywide, IndyMac, Northern Rock (UK, I know), etc. This doesn’t even include banks like Lehman, Citi and Merril that are merely writing down billions in assets. There are so many financial institutions that are going down, Fannie and Freddie are getting lost in the crowd. The thinking goes, these i-banks with the best and the brightest are getting bit, for making the same investments, it shouldn’t be surprising that Fannie and Freddie are getting bitten. People don’t understand the intricacies of finance enough to know that these two organizations don’t have the same capital requirements, risk management rules, etc. And let’s face it the media has and always will be shallow about those intricacies, with the exception of the FT and WSJ, which are pretty specialized. When I was a trader there was an adage that it’s ok to be wrong on a trade if everyone else is wrong as well. The only time you get in trouble is if you’re the only one. The lesson is if you’re going to fail, fail in a group.

UPDATE: Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute e-mails with a link to her article in City Journal from January. It does an excellent job explaining how all the safeguards put in place after the Enron mess appear to be misguided and worthless in light of recent developments.