>Houses that went for $120,000 four years ago are listed for $400,000+ for no other reason than people think they can cash in, and see all the other listings fo

>Houses that went for $120,000 four years ago are listed for $400,000+ for no other reason than people think they can cash in, and see all the other listings for the same unrealistic prices, and they're trying to "get theirs while the getting is good." Listing prices are not the only indicator in residential housing. Sale prices can be a more accurate number, and those are also up. https://www.zillow.com/las-vegas-nv/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/las-vegas-nv/home-values/ It is always a careful balance of asking price and sale price, and is reflective of many different variables: housing supply, population demand, wage growth, job growth, space, traffic, etc. Seller greed is part of the equation, but not the determining factor. >very few people who move to Vegas are tied to the city this is true, Nevada does have very high population turnover, but, it is not totally clear that this has a huge bearing on sale prices, this should reflect much more in rent, as those that buy homes are generally committing to longer stays. In the <2 year timeframe, home buying transaction costs and taxes can negate any appreciation, though. If appreciation is high enough, though, then even the transaction costs can be ignored. It is also important to remove people who are simply moving within las vegas into nicer homes, as they may receive benefits that reduce those transaction costs for the sale of their primary residence. >I'm not an expert on real estate trends, but Las Vegas real estate is not something that should be used as an indicator of anything. It was a very hard hit area in the last crisis, so it is reasonable to watch its recovery for at least some indications of the state of the recovery from the previous crash, and that recovery should be compared the fundamentals of the Las Vegas economy, relative to the last crash.