Cheesehead, I would urge you not to spend 1.1% on any kind of money management. You state you need your nest egg to deliver 3%. You can do this with very little risk exposure.
If you pay someone 1.1%, they need to deliver 4.1%, so you can get your 3%. In other words they need to be 36.6% better than your couch potato approach. Independent studies have shown, repeatedly, they almost never ever do this.
As far as your concern with rising interest rates, look for example at Vanguard's VICSX, which is an Intermediate Term Corporate Bond Index Fund, https://personal.vanguard.com/us/fun...FundIntExt=INT
, with a stated SEC Yield of 3.41 %.
Say you have 100K in that fund, and you are getting 3.41%, and interest rates rise. While your principle amount will drop, as old bonds mature, and new ones come in, the yield will rise, so your income from the fund will be stable, unless you decide to sell shares.
Within a fund like Wellesley or Wellington, their exposure to rising interest rates will be managed the same way. Keep in mind that Wellington will be more exposed to stock prices falling than Wellesley, because they are "about" 2/3 stock/bonds invested, as opposed to Wellesley's "about" 1/3 stocks/bonds ratio.
Only needing 3% puts you in great shape to get what you need, and stay conservative.
BTW, your age and your wife's age are exactly the same as mine and my DW. I could survive on a 3% return, but to live the life I desire, I'd like to coax 3.5%, which I still feel is very doable with a conservative approach.
EDIT: I don't think you've mentioned if the bulk of your nest egg is "tax advantaged-deferred", as in IRAs. Mine is, so I don't worry about what some people on this forum refer to as "tax efficient", which is another way of saying "what your real return will be after Uncle Sam, and your state, take their tax bites". You might want to let us know about this, as there are many folks who have this figured out. I'm not one of them.