This paper examines how third-party quality evaluations help mitigate interpretive challenges faced by audiences in response to rare events. Building on the emerging literature on status multidimensionality and inconsistency, I propose that while organizational and product status generally confer benefits, a mismatch between the two can lead to penalties. Specifically, high-status organizations offering low-status products contradict audience expectations about quality, resulting in negative evaluations. Conversely, low-status organizations presenting high-status products may lack credibility, limiting their ability to fully capitalize on the product's status. To test these hypotheses, I analyze data on catastrophe bonds issued since the market's inception in 1996. The findings reveal that, despite the financial market's sophistication, investors rely on third-party quality evaluations to navigate the uncertainty associated with rare events. These evaluations enhance product valuation but are moderated by inconsistencies between organizational and product status, affecting the overall benefits of status.
