Given all this amount of self-education and years of studying, it's only natural that [we] feel just as well trained and capable as any analyst who is employed by a broking firm to look after their paying corporate clients. Fair question: "Given an equal amount of studies, mental capacity, and time spent on the job: what justifies the additional expense of asking an FSB?" If a conflict of interest came about between a big client offering a commission to sell, which FSB would ring his retail clients and suggest they sell as well? I've heard of claims to the contrary, but common sense (if not personal experience) would suggest otherwise.
There can be a good and valid reason for using services like rec sheets, stock analysis, or various other subscriptions: If I can't find the time, or lack the patience/ understanding/ nerve to do the analysis myself, I pay somebody that does have the time and knows how to use those tools.
As regards "special knowledge" and "little-known background information" - sure, some Analysts have done their homework and collected useful information, which they sell to paying customers. [...]
That aside, however, there is also an enormous amount of information freely available on the www. It takes time to research; it helps to have a "network" of similarly interested people you know and trust. We share (group) e-mails, and newly discovered sources are freely discussed in private chatrooms - not to be confused with daytrader playgrounds or ramper forums. Takes an open mind and more time than a phone call or reading a report; but the reward is, it cuts out the middleman's opinion and even a hint of a suggestion of a suspicion of maybe an ulterior motive...