Money multiplier v loan to deposit ratio

I have noted that in discussions going about my blog on some fora - including financial and bankers' ones - many confuse a concept of money multiplier with a concept of loan to deposit ratio. For example:

"Comment:

Re Rosie's excellent questions and the subsequent discussion, it's well worth looking at http://gregpytel.blogspot.com/

The author looks at what happens if the Reserve Ratio is allowed to go negative -- i.e. the banks loan out £101 (or more!) for every £100 deposited. Couldn't happen, right? Read for yourself...

RGB

Response:

That would actually be a very prudent reserve ratio...the banks traditionally would lend £900 for every £100 reserve.and that was in the good old days of Capt Mainwaring,in some cases recently that was stretched to a £100 deposit turning into £4900 in loans!(stupid boys)

The Comment clearly refers to loan to deposit ratio whilst the Response is about money multiplier.

Just as example, loan to deposit ratio of 90% - i.e. lending £90 out of every £100 - gives money multiplier 10, whilst loan to deposit ratio of 101% - i.e. lending £101 out of every £100 - gives unbounded money multiplier (i.e. the money multiplier tends to infinity at exponential pace).

Still confused? Then please read: "Computational complexity analysis of Credit Creation".