Partly it's true, but also all banks in the world are fractional reserve / printing money from thin air from the loans they got from bigger banks.
If the big US banks are successful, they can have their own one huge fractional reserve that can be used by people around the world.
Not only this isn't how banks work, but also completely irrelevant to moving money.
Then whats your brief description of how banks create new money?
While the wording was imprecise, actually this is what banks are doing: Creating loans, based on the deposits of customers.
You wrote "from the loans they got from bigger banks" which makes little sense.
Private banks create money by extending credit, that's it. They worry later about reserve requirements, which in the case of USD or EUR are extremely low.
And I still don't understand how this relevant in any way to the topic.
I wasnt the OP :)
They are expanding credit, but they need customer funds on the central banking level to actually move away the money the created on their local core banking; thats the reason why banks needs customer funds: Without them, their central bank account would be empty and they couldnt transfer any money that they created. the question regarding minimum reserve is another angle and not relevant to the question of how money is technically created and then transfered.
EDIT: for sure, they can also acquire central bank money as a credit to make the payments transfer happen, but usually its more easier and convenient to use customer funds instead of borrowing from the central bank or on the interbank level
My bad. Sure it's easier and more convenient, and also it's cheaper. But not entirely necessary.
Sure, I know of a large corp-only/inudstrial bank, where the "customer funds" are just a bunch of some other mega-corps, each depositing 5-10 billion. (from a regulatory perspective, those are customer funds as well, even if its just 10 different parties)