> A new hire could be easily bought or bribed?

This one. Same reason it's looked at for a security clearance.

I would think it would be fairly obvious that a candidate could be “bought or bribed,” simply from the fact they’re asking for a job in the first place. They’re willing to exchange their time for money, i.e. “be bought.”

So why do people not commit corporate espionage? Well, it might have more to do with character traits than financial stability. In fact, most spies probably have their life fairly well together, and will have perfect credit. As for any asset they might compromise, what’s the difference between someone with poor credit applying to a job because they need the money, vs. applying to a job because they need more money from your enemy bribing them? I’d argue the difference comes down to character.

So for that reason, I’m skeptical of the effectiveness of a credit report as a proxy for likelihood to commit corporate espionage. A good credit report doesn’t seem to offer meaningful signal in either case of a malicious attacker or a desperate contributor. A bad credit report produces as many false positives as a good one.

You're not afraid of a spy.

You're afraid of someone with 100k in gambling debts to the mob.

This is what Schneier calls a "movie-plot threat". Instead of imagining a complicated narrative that connects a poor credit score with episodes of control fraud, improve internal controls so that individual contributors don't have the ability to steal from customers. This would be safer, and more considerate of your colleagues.

Which isn't all that likely to show up on either a credit report or a background check.

It will. You pay the guy who will break your legs first. Thus you will be delinquent on other stuff.

But unfortunately not "A new hire needs money so give them a good offer".

It’s a proxy for having your shit together.

The bankrupt dude with a felony DWI is a liability for anything involving cash, driving or public contact.