They might even actually save a buck or two when one might realize they will not listen to radio over their system. I have good enough a system that low quality radio sounds horrid at home even though I nearly always listen to it while driving.
One prime example of the flexibility is that a separate pre-amp will make possible adding another amp to an existing one (whether it is an receiver or just separate amp.) That can make up for a nice older receiver that is only stereo & you can supplement that with a more up to date amp for additional channels.
Separates also makes possible replacing/upgrading one component at a time. Some years back it was common for stereo receivers to have an easy changing of conducting pins on the back to unhook the pre-amp from the adjoining amp so that an additional amp could be added for more power.
It is curious that because of differing engineering concepts used when designing speakers creates the situation that some are highly efficient & therefore provide plenty of volume from relatively few watts per channel of power, whereas another choice of speakers is referred to as a "difficult" load requiring a lot more power.
Most folks new to this probably do not need separates because their needs are not extensive. But you mention you recently bought high end speakers so you know this hobby can become contagious & lead to more expense. I'm guilty, but have to claim fine sound & image are worth it.
I recently bought some high end speakers for my media room. I am new to this. In the past I have used an AV receiver and wired all my components to it, including speakers to use its internal amplifier. However it seems the serious audiophile uses an entirely different approach with individual components consisting of tuners, preamps and amps etc. Can someone please explain why this system is better and if its really worth the extra cost involved? Also, whose components are good without breaking my bank account? Thanks.

Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic