See the world through a spy's eyes.

(Note: we're doing What to Watch For Revisited earlier this month because we have a three-part series on how cheaper analysis changes the rest of the DADA Chain coming next week).

Along the DADA Chain, costs go up as you go from left to right.

Data is cheapest. Then analysis is more expensive. Then a decision is more expensive than analysis. Then action is the most expensive step of all.

Which is why the actions of others tell you a lot.

What they do, they can't take back.

It's their most expensive step.

So you give it the most weight.

-----------------

The Paramount-Warner Bros merger vs. the 12 state attorneys general.

There were lopsided costs in that conflict. It cost Paramount a lot of money to continue. It cost the state attorneys general very little. But there was another type of cost to consider: the political cost of continuing.

What was to watch for: the settlement's language. Which would tell you who wanted the game over most.

The states wanted structural terms. They wanted companies separated and pieces sold. If Paramount agreed, that meant Paramount wanted the game over most.

Paramount wanted behavioral terms. They wanted film counts and theater windows. If the states agreed to those, it meant the states wanted the game over most.

Where it stands: On September 21, both sides settled.

The terms are behavioral.

Thirty films a year for five years. More money for U.S. production. A fund for workers. A promise to keep two studio lots in California for five years.

California's attorney general had said only structural terms would end the suit.

But he agreed to behavioral ones.

Behind the scenes, theaters and unions had asked the state attorneys general to settle. Reports say the Governor of California pushed to end the suit, too.

Paramount made it politically expensive for the state attorneys general to keep playing.

And got what they wanted.

So far, at least. There's another player: the judge. At Thursday's hearing she deferred her ruling and asked for more paper by Monday.

-----------------

The yen and U.S. Treasuries.

Japan owns more U.S. Treasury bonds than any other country. If Japan wants to defend the value of the yen, it sells U.S. Treasuries to raise the dollars. Which the U.S. doesn't want.

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent is now helping Japan defend the value of the yen. So Japan doesn't sell U.S. Treasuries.

What was to watch for: the monthly data on Japan's U.S. Treasuries holdings. Japan's number steady or rising meant Washington got what it paid for. Japan's number falling meant Bessent wasn't getting what he wanted.

Where it stands: the July data came out September 16. Japan's number fell $12.8 billion, to $1.104 trillion.

The third monthly fall in a row. The value of Japan's U.S. Treasury holdings has fallen $106 billion over the three months.

The yen didn't lose its value. It sits near 157 per dollar, down from 164.

But Japan is defending it with U.S. Treasuries. Which the U.S. doesn't want.

The Fed's part: the committee left the lending facility where it was. It raised rates instead. The Bank of Japan raised two days later. Both hikes together left the gap between the two currencies about where it was.

Bessent's answer to all of it, at a Texas university this month: "I am the house now." He told yen traders they could bet against him if they wanted.

Bessent is saying he knows the Bank of Japan's next move. And the yen won't lose its value. And he's hoping Japan won't sell U.S. Treasuries to protect the value of the yen.

But will it work?

The next date to watch is when the U.S. Treasury reports Japan's August holdings: October 16.

-----------------

Russia and Ukraine and the two Boss Games.

What was to watch for in the Boss Game in Moscow: If Putin's goals shrink toward what Russia already has, that would be an exit he could call a win. Goals staying big meant the war still benefits the Boss Game at home.

Where it stands: on September 5, Putin claimed Russia has the upper hand. His demands stayed where they were.

Then the Duma election. United Russia took about 58% of the vote. Which is an endorsement of Putin.

The vote gave Putin no reason to change.

What was to watch for in the Boss Game in Kyiv: Whether calls for a wartime vote spread into Zelensky's own coalition. Or corruption investigations reach men Zelensky can't dismiss.

Where it stands: corruption investigations reached one of Zelensky's men. And Zelensky dismissed him.

The prosecutor general, Kravchenko, was a Zelensky man three jobs running. Last year a law put the anti-corruption agencies under his control. Protests reversed it.

On September 4, those agencies searched his office. On September 7, Zelensky met him. He offered his resignation. In Ukraine that takes a vote of parliament, so he kept the office while he waited.

Kravchenko used the week to fight back. He accused the head of the agency of crimes and left the country. Zelensky said in public: "This prosecutor general has only one path: to leave his post." Parliament voted him out the next day. 317 votes.

Here's the mechanism. Under martial law there are no elections. So the only way to move a man the president wants to keep is a corruption case.

The anti-corruption agencies build those cases. And their independence is a condition of the European money that's locked in for two years. Last year a corruption case removed Zelensky's chief of staff.

This month one reached a close Zelensky ally. And Zelensky let the man go rather than fight the anti-corruption agencies.

The Boss Game in Kyiv gets serious when someone uses a corruption case against Zelensky.

Zelensky gave up an ally so that wouldn't happen. The case ended with a resignation instead of a fight. No one called for a vote to unseat Zelensky.

The Boss Game in Kyiv is still deferred. This month, it cost Zelensky one man to keep it that way.

-----------------

Venezuela and the Boss Game.

The U.S. and Venezuela's interim government made an oil deal. Machado, the opposition leader, was left out of it.

What was to watch for: Machado's next move. She could ask for an election date. Or she could say a government she leads won't honor a deal signed by an unelected one.

Where it stands: Machado asked for a date. And didn't challenge the U.S. oil deal.

Her movement posted the date on September 20: July 24, 2027. She told the Wall Street Journal she's going back to Venezuela to run. By land, sea or air.

And she told investors to go ahead and invest now. Which means she'll honor the U.S. oil deal.

Interim President Delcy Rodriguez has no reason to agree to that date. She has the government, the oil deal, and U.S. recognition. The only party that can make her agree to an election date is the U.S.

So if Rodriguez answers with a date, that's the U.S. pushing.

If she stays silent, the U.S. isn't pushing, and she stays.

-----------------

Rare earths. Chinese President Xi is in Washington as this Briefing goes out.

The one result so far: the trade truce that suspends China's rare earth controls was extended two months, to January 10.

The number to watch is yttrium in China's customs data for September and October. Those numbers arrive in October and November.

One thing to grade now: the heavy separation line at Mountain Pass. In May the company said commissioning was about to begin. It's late September.

That line hasn't produced its first separated dysprosium or terbium yet. Lynas in Malaysia has been making both since last year, in small amounts. Mountain Pass is the one the U.S. is counting on.

If you want to know more about rare earths and China, this video explains it well: China Found Something Better Than Oil.

-----------------

Actions are expensive.

And taking one action usually means someone had to give something up.

The states settled. Japan sold. Zelensky let his man go. Machado posted a date and told investors to go ahead.

When you look at others' actions, their actions become your data. And you start the DADA chain again.

Somewhere in your life, someone is telling you what they're going to do. A buyer who says the offer is coming. A partner who says the terms are fine. A relative who says the estate will be settled by spring.

Look for action instead. The things they did and can't take back.

So for the person in your life, write down what they've done in the last month. Only what they've done. Leave out what they've said.

Next to each action, write what it cost them. Money. Time. A relationship. An option they closed.

The most expensive thing on that list shows you where they're going.

That's the data for your next decision.

-----------------

The frameworks used here are in A Spy's Guide to Thinking and A Spy's Guide to Strategy.

-John Braddock

spysguide.com