If you just lend it to me without any security, I'd say it is an unsecured loan and there is no reserve at all.

When people say fractional reserve don't they mean that a bank or something loans out more money than they have on deposit?

Here's something I often think about (but struggle to understand):

And as Rothbard himself points out, lending is indistinct from investing:

Whether saved capital is channeled into investments via stocks or via loans is unimportant. The only difference is in the legal technicalities. Indeed, even the legal difference between the creditor and the owner is a negligible one.

All lending originates from a person's accumulated capital, whether deposited in bank or otherwise. There is no source for lending other than savings deposited.

This is from Voskuil's Full Reserve Fallacy

The way I currently understand it is that in order to land something out, you must risk that you will not get it back. Otherwise you haven't actually lent it out.