When investors try to predict future stock prices, they’re engaging in an activity that’s both an art and a science. That’s because no one knows what will happen, obviously.

But those who own or are considering purchasing stock in a company should make the effort. Doing it in a way that has some chance of being accurate requires developing an understanding of the business and making some assumptions, but you’ll find the effort worthwhile.

Chipotle Mexican Grill (CMG -1.19%) has encountered some challenges this year. But where can we expect its stock price to be in five years?

The business

Chipotle Mexican Grill serves Mexican-style food such as burritos, quesadillas, tacos, and salads. The fast-casual restaurant seeks to use fresh ingredients without artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives.

The company has had a lot of success, but results have been challenging recently. That’s because consumers have faced broadly higher prices for most of their purchases, and their paychecks haven’t kept up with inflation.

In the second quarter, Chipotle’s same-store sales increased 2.2%. While that was not great, it was an improvement from the first quarter’s 0.5% gain. Positively, in Q2, higher traffic contributed 1 percentage point to that growth. That shows people remain attracted to the restaurant.

The spending breakout shows how persistent inflation has weighed on consumers. Higher spending added 1.2 percentage points to the same-store sales gain. However, this was entirely due to Chipotle’s price increases (1.6 percentage points), and customers shifting to lower-priced items subtracted 0.4 percentage points from the final result.

Adding to the company’s woes, a salmonella outbreak was linked to jalapeños served at Chipotle. Still, management appeared to act quickly to address the issue with its supplier, which means customers aren’t likely to permanently stop visiting its restaurants.

Today’s Change

(-1.19%) $-0.40

Current Price

$33.36

Key Data Points

Market Cap

$42BMarket cap calculated using publicly traded shares outstanding only. Does not include unlisted, private, or dual-class non-traded shares. Implied market cap may vary.

Day’s Range

$33.20 – $34.01

52wk Range

$28.04 – $43.99

Volume

26.4K

Avg Vol

20M

Gross Margin

21.09%

Meanwhile, the company has continued its expansion plans. Starting in 1993, it grew to nearly 4,100 restaurants as of June 30, 2026.

Management opened 144 new locations, net of closures, during the first six months of the year. It plans to open 350 to 370 restaurants total for the year.

Putting it together

Diluted earnings per share (EPS) were flat in the second quarter, compared to a year ago. Assuming the inflationary environment becomes more benign, people may feel more comfortable spending money on eating out. That should help Chipotle’s sales and earnings growth.

Chipotle earned $1.14 a share in 2025. From 2020 through 2025, EPS grew 357%.

Assuming its earnings grow at a much slower rate over the next five years — say, 200% — that would bring Chipotle’s EPS to $3.42 in 2030.

The stock trades at a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 31.

Assuming that ratio stays constant, multiplying the EPS by the P/E points to a stock price of $106. That’s more than triple the current stock price of $33.50.

Of course, that’s still a rapid earnings growth rate. What if it slows down to 50% over the next five years? Chipotle Mexican Grill’s stock price would increase to $53, 58% above its current price. Investors would undoubtedly be pleased with that performance.

But as any chief executive knows, the strongest brands are rarely destroyed by their competitors. More often, brands are weakened by a company’s own choices that erode the very qualities that made them successful in the first place.

This principle applies to nations as well. As the United States marks the 250th anniversary of its independence, Americans need to ask not only whether their country remains one of the world’s most influential powers, but whether they have the internal qualities that sustain that influence.

Recent global polling suggests that America’s reputation has weakened. Pew Research Center’s 2026 survey of 36 countries found that a median of just 37% of respondents expressed a favorable view of the United States, compared with 57% who held an unfavorable view. China was viewed more favorably than the U.S. in most of the countries surveyed.

Separately, Gallup polling found that global approval of U.S. leadership fell from 39% in 2024 to 31% in 2025. Approval of Chinese leadership rose from 32% to 36% over the same period. Among NATO allies, approval os U.S. leadership fell 14 percentage points to 21%.

It’s clear that U.S. reputation has taken a hit. But it’s more important to ask whether America’s current policy choices are gradually eroding the sources of what made it influential in the first place.

America’s global standing has never rested solely on its economic size or military capability. Its enduring advantage also comes from its world-class universities, deep financial markets, and leading research institutions. Together, these strengths enabled the United States to attract exceptional people from around the world and give them the freedom to transform industries. Take Google cofounder Sergey Brin, who came to the United States from the Soviet Union as a child. Just this year, Chinese-born mathematicians Hong Wang and Yu Deng, who earned their Ph.D.s at MIT and Princeton, respectively, were awarded Fields Medals for breakthroughs in mathematics; both now teach at U.S. universities. 

In short, the U.S. didn’t become powerful just by being bigger. Instead, it was more magnetic—a trait that has produced extraordinary returns.

According to NAFSA, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy and supported almost 380,000 jobs during the 2023-2024 academic year. The National Foundation for American Policy reported than almost one quarter of all U.S. startups worth $1 billion had at least one founder who first came to the U.S. as an international student; almost 60% were founded by an immigrant.

Recent policy developments risk weakening that American advantage. Expanded visa screening and vetting, restrictions affecting international students from certain countries, greater scrutiny of universities’ foreign funding and research partnerships, and cuts and uncertainty surrounding federal research funding could make the United States less attractive to the world’s most talented students and researchers.

New international student enrolment at U.S. colleges and universities fell 17% in fall 2025, according to the Institute of International Education.

These policies may be founded on legitimate national security, economic, or fiscal concerns. But they come with trade-offs.

Businesses understand the importance of talent. Great companies compete relentless for the world’s best people, understanding that innovation is founded on human capital. Governments that want to lead in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing, advanced manufacturing, and clean energy will need to do the same.

If the world’s most talented young people choose Beijing, London, or Singapore over Boston, San Francisco or Austin, it will mean fewer U.S. startups, a weaker research ecosystem, and a narrow margin of technological leadership.

And once an ecosystem loses its magnetism, it can be hard to get it back. Competitive decline rarely happens from a dramatic collapse, but rather through incremental decisions that gradually make a system less attractive to exceptional people.

The U.S.-China relationship makes this challenge more difficult, yet also more important. The strategic competition between the two largest economies will shape policy for years to come. The answer, however, should be targeted and selective, rather than a blanked suspension.

It’s true that some technologies are too sensitive to share. Some research relationships warrant scrutiny; some foreign investments should be restricted.

But scientific inquiry does not stop at national borders, and many of the world’s most consequential problems, from pandemics and climate change to energy security and food production, cannot be solved by one country working alone.

U.S. universities and companies succeed when researchers can exchange ideas with counterparts around the world. This collaboration also allows U.S. institutions to shape research agendas, set international standards, and remain at the center of global scientific networks.

The policy challenge isn’t about choosing between security and openness, but rather designing policies sophisticated enough to achieve both.

Carefully targeted export controls, rigorous protection of sensitive technologies and transparent research-security standards can coexist with robust academic exchange, joint research on global challenges and continued recruitment of exceptional international talent.  Sustaining carefully designed channels for academic exchange and scientific cooperation, while protecting genuinely sensitive technologies, would strengthen America’s long-term competitiveness.

It would also bolster a defining characteristic of America’s national brand: The confidence that openness, excellence and innovation remain mutually reinforcing.

Confidence matters. A country that believes in its own competitive strength does not need to shut out talented people to protect its position. It sets clear boundaries around what must be protected while remaining open to the people and ideas that can make it stronger.

Successful companies understand this. When competitive pressure intensifies, they do not make themselves less attractive to top talent. They invest more heavily in becoming the employer of choice. They strengthen their culture, research capabilities and opportunities for innovation.

Nations—and the U.S.—should think the same way.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.