This is a rhetorical question, because I know we don't really know, but... I am concerned mainly because the relief being offered to landlords (mortgage forbearance) is not beneficial enough when compared to what tenants receive.  What I mean by that is: if a landlord gets forbearance on a mortgage, all their payments pile up while they aren't paying them (they don't get forgiven, or even paused).  The landlord has to make back those payments (get back on track) eventually.  If you are a landlord and get behind by 3 months or more, it may require a monster cash payment to get back on track.  And if you don't eventually the banks can foreclose on you.  Now, compare this to a tenant, who is told they can't be evicted.  If they don't pay rent for 3 months (or more, who knows how long??), in theory they will eventually have to make all the back payments, but in reality, they could simply just leave the house once they are told that evictions are starting.  The landlord likely won't have any recourse and just lost those months of rent.  In summary, the threat of eventual foreclosure for the landlord is a much bigger consequence than the eventual eviction for the tenant, which may simply just turn into a quick move-out when forced to (maybe simply with the loss of a security deposit).   So this makes me nervous as a landlord.  The longer this goes one, landlords get more and more in the hole, whereas tenants just get a bigger reason to move-out and dash at the end.

Curious regarding thoughts on this, and if you even see the forbearance as a big benefit, knowing you have a stack of payments waiting for you on the back end of it...