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 regulatory environment gives a tax advantage for debt. Debt interest is tax-deductible, while equity returns are usually subject to double taxation (first at the corporate level, then at the shareholder level). This distorts market incentives, steering firms to over-leverage not because it is optimal, but because fiscal rules subsidize it.
- The behavioral source is the tendency to prioritize self-interest over the common good. When each investor seeks the lowest individual risk with minimum due diligence, debt becomes the predominant form of financing. But then, paradoxically, it becomes the most expensive for society. This is the well-known Tragedy of the Commons problem. The Prophet, peace be upon him, warned against this selfish behavior in the well-known Hadith of the Ship, where the failure of a few to act for the common good sinks the vessel for all.
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:
- Formulating a neutral tax treatment of debt and equity.
- Setting limits on debt-equity and debt-assets ratios.
- Supporting the development of alternative financial products that have built-in, contract-based loss absorption.
- Promoting techniques for quantifying business worthiness to complement the common creditworthiness ratings.
The successful implementation of these metrics is where modern technologies, especially AI, can play a major role. Modern AI systems can:
- Assess business prospects in real-time using large, heterogeneous datasets.
- Monitor ongoing business performance and market risks more accurately and cheaply than traditional due diligence allows.
- Detect anomalies, fraud, and early warning signs before they escalate to potential loss events or insolvency.
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.]
