Previous studies document statistically significant evidence of crude oil return predictability by several forecasting variables. We suggest that this evidence is misleading and follows from the common use of within-month averages of daily oil prices in calculating returns used in predictive regressions. Averaging introduces a bias in the estimates of the first-order autocorrelation coefficient and variance of returns. Consequently, estimates of regression coefficients are inefficient and associated t-statistics are overstated, leading to false inference about the true extent of in-sample and out-of-sample return predictability. On the contrary, using end-of-month data, we do not find convincing evidence for the predictability of oil returns. Our results highlight and provide a cautionary tale on how the choice of data could influence hypothesis testing for return predictability.