Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz once remarked that debt financing without bankruptcy is like Hamlet without the Prince. Or, to borrow from our culture, it is like Qais without Laila! Bankruptcy …
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz once remarked that debt financing without bankruptcy is like Hamlet without the Prince. Or, to borrow from our culture, it is like Qais without Laila! Bankruptcy …

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz once remarked that debt financing without bankruptcy is like Hamlet without the Prince. Or, to borrow from our culture, it is like Qais without Laila!
Bankruptcy is not a minor footnote in the story of modern finance — it is a central character in debt financing, shaping incentives, costs, and risks for both private and public actors.
This is not just an issue of efficiency; it is a public policy problem. The resources spent on bankruptcy procedures are ultimately paid for by society at large, whether through taxes, higher transaction costs, reduced public services, or more cumbersome regulations.
The number of large U.S. corporate bankruptcies in the first half of 2025 has reached its highest since the Global Financial Crisis.
Several studies have estimated the “dead-weight loss” associated with bankruptcy, often expressed as a percentage of the firm’s value irretrievably lost due to legal, administrative, and asset-devaluation costs during insolvency.
Estimates of the direct deadweight loss from corporate bankruptcy are about 4% of the pre-distress value of the business, and up to 30% loss of value in indirect costs.
Moreover, studies indicate that towns and regions with increased business bankruptcies experience marked declines in economic productivity, increased unemployment, and greater reliance on social welfare programs, demonstrating the destructive ripple effects of insolvencies well beyond the initially affected business.
In sum, the process of bankruptcy destroys substantial economic value above and beyond transfers between creditors and debtors; avoiding or reducing these deadweight costs is a direct social and economic gain.
The bias towards debt financing arises mainly from two sources: one regulatory, the other behavioral.
The bias towards debt makes equity riskier and thus more expensive, reinforcing a vicious cycle and creating a debt trap that threatens the economy’s growth and stability.
Risk-sharing allocates business risk to investors, who are generally better diversified and informed than the average citizen. This reduces the likelihood that public institutions are called upon to resolve private risk miscalculations. An economy that encourages risk-sharing thus reclaims public resources and enhances systemic resilience.
While the principles of Islamic finance are essential, they are not sufficient. We need to translate these principles into proper policy metrics to limit the dead-weight loss of debt financing. This includes:
The successful implementation of these metrics is where modern technologies, especially AI, can play a major role. Modern AI systems can:
Several studies by the IMF and others show that the real sector is generally more resilient than the conventional financial sector. The integration of the two, therefore, should make the overall economy more stable and productive.
Let me conclude by rephrasing Joseph Stiglitz’s remark: Islamic finance without risk-sharing is like Hamlet without the Prince, or, like Qais without Laila!
[This article is based on a speech delivered by Dr. Sami Al-Suwailem during the 20th AAOIFI-IsDB Annual Islamic Banking and Finance Conference, in Manama, Bahrain, on 2 November 2025.]
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.