Template:Isda 5(a)(iii) general

For paranoia junkies and conspiracy theorists amongst you, note the long reach this event of default gives to a {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}} provision. Now, granted, in the ordinary course {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}} keys off borrowed money or indebtedness, and by common convention that does not count out-of-the-money exposures under derivative contracts, so the ISDA Master Agreement’s own events of default should not exacerbate your cross-default risk under other contracts. Unless you widen {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}} to include derivative exposures, as some counterparties do.

Okay; buckle in, for this is a bit of a Zodiac Mindwarp. But if you widen your conception of {{{{{1}}}|Specified Indebtedness}} ...

Now we see that courtesy of Section {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(iii)}}, a default by my {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Provider}} (which, remember, need not be my parent: it may be an unaffiliated third-party like a bank writing a letter of credit or financial guarantee) is also default under my ISDA Master Agreement, even where I personally am fully solvent, in good standing, of sound credit and up-to-date with my rent, outgoings, credit card payments and so on.

Fair enough, you might say, for that {{{{{1}}}|Credit Support Document}} was a fundamental part of your calculus when you agreed to trade swaps with me in the first place, and so it was — but, since (through {{{{{1}}}|5(a)(iii)}} that guarantor’s default counts as my default under our ISDA Master Agreement, through a carelessly widened cross-default in another facility that same guarantor default could be used by my other counterparties to accelerate those other facilities, even though those other facilities are not guaranteed by the same guarantor. So there is this ugly — rather theoretical, I grant you, but nonetheless ugly — snowball risk.

Just something to think about when your own credit department tries to loosen the waistband of what kinds of obligations trigger {{{{{1}}}|Cross Default}}, anyway.