I like the visual representation. Part of the issue to consider is that we naturally assume prior LC returns are the benchmark, but they could have been too high to begin with. As a result, it may be interesting to separate out impacts from credit quality and impacts from changing interest rates. I imagine that is much harder to calculate though
Okay, I already did that but it was part of the "I don't want to bore you" data I omitted

The second chart below is very interesting. It appears that LC lowered its lending standards very significantly in 14Q3, 14Q4. One trick to reading the tables is to recognize that equal calendar dates fall on diagonals, For example calendar time 14Q3 MOB 36 is the same as 14Q4 MOB 33 is the same as 15Q1 MOB 30,etc. We know the LC scandal began in mid-May 2016 or half way into 16Q2 MOB 1. If the scandal contributed to an increase in charge offs they should begin to show up maybe 6 months later. The scandal charge off periods include 16Q2 MOB 9-15, 16Q1 MOB 9-18, 15Q4 MOB 12-21, and 15Q3 MOB 15-24. On the earlier side 15Q3 seems to have been completely unaffected by the scandal. I can only conclude that lending standards were significantly higher in this and earlier vintages. They are also past the peak charge off months. But 15Q4 was probably hit with the double wammy of a lowered lending standards by LC and the effects of the scandal. For vintages 16Q3 and later LC's originations plummeted and there isn't enough data determine if lending standards have been raised.
In the final chart (MOB to MOB within Vintage) data has the characteristic shape rising steeply in first 12-18 months then tapering off.
Just what you would expect. Everything is better since 16Q2 but better is relative and still looks pretty dismal. It's early yet so guess we'll tune in later and find out.
So, here it is (LC, Grade C, 36 month term only):
