It may not quite be the “Rumble in the Jungle,” or even Mike Tyson vs. Jake Paul, but the current skirmish between hedge fund Saba Capital and Blackrock is generating a substantial ringside audience, with the outcome possibly determining whether average American investors will prevail or be knocked to the canvas.

The first punch was thrown when Saba launched the “Hey Blackrock” offensive, which targeted 10 closed-end funds (CEFs) managed by Blackrock in which Saba is the largest (but not majority) stakeholder. Blackrock countered with a “Defend Your Fund” campaign to warn its investors of Saba’s ultimate intention; to redeem funds currently priced below net value for a windfall profit, squeezing the fund dry to wither on the vine.

Saba is run by Boaz Weinstein, a man who many recall made billions at the expense of JPMorgan on a credit derivative gamble, helping Saba finance an aggressive move against Blackrock, as it has against 60 CEFs to date. Their playbook upon gaining control of a fund is to quickly close the discount and walk away with a hefty profit.

But much like the early pioneers nearly killed off the buffalo, Saba and its hedgie pals are on a path to make the CEF extinct. The number of listed CEFs has fallen from a peak of  662 in 2007 and has since tumbled 38% to 412. That decline has come as hedge funds, led by Saba Capital, have ramped up their targeting of CEFs.

This matters because the Saba strategy promises a quick windfall for itself and other profit pirates, but bludgeons both the intent of long-term investors and the unique role that CEFs play in broader markets. The steady state of capital raised by CEFs provides its fund managers the security to make long-term investment decisions and even gain access to less liquid corners of the market, such as startups, private equity, and commercial real estate.

These sectors customarily open the velvet ropes only to high-end investors and venture capitalists connected to private-equity firms. CEFs help level the playing field by offering ordinary Americans the opportunity to invest in these prized and exclusive assets.

As CNBC noted, “In the hedge fund game, a business in which ruthlessness is prized and money is the ultimate measure, Mr. Weinstein is what is known as a ‘monster’ — an aggressive trader with a preternatural appetite for risk and a take-no-prisoners style.” This is what average American investors and pensioners are up against.

Saba’s clash with Blackrock could be yet another devastating blow to retail investors, who are already closed out from investment opportunities in startups and other private businesses that can generate substantial returns. If Saba Capital’s campaign against BlackRock’s closed-end funds (CEFs) succeeds, the endangered CEF will be that much closer to extinction.

CEFs start with a set amount of capital and a limited number of outstanding shares that can’t be diluted. This lockup of capital and the limited liquidity of CEFs are what allow the funds to invest in these private markets, but on occasion they also lead to the discount between the market price of the funds and the value of the underlying holdings.

That isn’t a problem for long-term investors, but vulture funds like Saba feast off the momentary discount for a short-term gain. Saba has suggested the funds in its crosshairs should liquidate or buy back some of their shares at above market price. This is akin to forcing McDonald’s to buy back the uneaten portion of your Big Mac, a laughable and entirely unfeasible proposal designed to line the pockets of hedge fund investors while eviscerating the very rationale that makes CEFs an attractive long-term investment.

Many companies, especially some of the most attractive startups in recent years, are staying private for longer, cutting retail investors out of the wealth creation they generate. As the CEF herd continues to thin, more opportunities will remain out of reach for small investors and average Americans.

The role CEFs play in the market, as well as their unique accessibility to ordinary investors, should not be further diminished. Although, understandably, Saba Capital wants to maximize its return on investment, the Weinstein “monster” should not be permitted to do so at the expense of prohibiting ordinary investors from obtaining a return on their own.

Gerard Scimeca is an attorney and chairman of CASE, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, a non-partisan, free-market-oriented consumer non-profit he co-founded.