While I enjoyed the spirit of the article, and I think we need more articles like this, I disagree with the conclusions because they are much too optimistic. I would like to present the possibility that we might never see the same home prices in the lifetime of this current generation.
Here's why:
There were many kinds of "toxic mortgages" out there, but one of the most basic was the interest-only loan. Basically, you never pay into the principal of your home, you merely paid the interest and would, in theory, do that for the rest of your life since the balance on your account (the amount you owed) never changed. Why would anyone do this?
Most people had to do this because the housing prices were so high to begin with and they simply couldn't afford the payments for both principal and interest. Let's do some basic maths: if you have a $500,000 USD home with a 5% interest rate (which, by any measure, is a wonderful interest rate), that means that the interest alone on your home would be $25,000 on a yearly basis. So you're already at a montly payment north of $2000 and when you add a payment to the principal of the loan (about $500), property taxes, insurance, etc, you are approaching $3,000. When you also factor in that a 5% interest rate wasn't available in 2006, then you have a monthly home payment of about $4,000. Finally, in a state like California, anyone will tell you that $500,000 didn't buy a very big house, this would have been, at best, a modest purchase; most likely a small, starter home or a condo.
So, we now have a modest home and a $4,000 monthly mortgage. That means that the yearly housing expense would be $48,000. General financial planning guidelines recommend that your housing expenses should reflect about 25% - 30% of your gross income (many experts put a cap at 25% and feel that 30% is too high). With this, we can conclude that in order to purchase a $500,000 home, and still be comfortable in your budget, you would need to have a household income of anywhere from $144,000 to $192,000.
Guess how many pre-2006 buyers had that type of income? Guess how many buyers have that type of income right now?
And this is why I disagree with the conclusion of the Moody's article. There is a direct correlation between home prices and the average income. We, as a society, lost sight of this correlation and that's why we have so many foreclosures right now. Therefore, in order to believe that prices will recover that "quickly" you would need to assume that wages would also rise as quickly and I don't see that as being the case. Historically, there is a large difference between the number of households above and below the $150,000 mark.
In the short term, like the next 20 years, I think that you will see a recovery to a price level that appeals to a sub $150,000 household - home prices in the sub $400,000 range. That's certainly a recovery from right now, but definitely not nearly as high as pre-bust levels. Beyond that, like the next 50 years, I think it will still be a long, slow process to get to housing prices above $500,00 and prices in the $750,000+ category (which were frighteningly common in California) may never be seen again by this generation.